USPTO serial 76294484
EARTH'S ANSWER PERFORMS LIKE DAIRY A SOY-BASED ANSWER TO CREAM CHEESE ORIGINAL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BEVERLY, JOSETTE MICHELLE
- Law office
- DIVISIONAL UNIT
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with EARTH'S ANSWER PERFORMS LIKE DAIRY A SOY-BASED ANSWER TO CREAM CHEESE ORIGINAL?
If you own this trademark, we can monitor new filings and help with USPTO deadlines. If you do not, we can file a new U.S. application.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Cynthia B. Stevens
JULIE NICHOLS MATTHEWS WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP225 W WACKER DR STE 2900CHICAGO, IL 60606UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | soy based food and beverages, namely soy based cream cheese, soy based sour cream, soy based dip, soy based milk | ACTIVE | — |
Related trademarks
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
- Other trademarks owned by Berner Foods, Inc.
- Other trademarks owned by Berner Foods, Inc.
- Other trademarks in Class 029
- Similar marks named EARTH'S ANSWER PERFORMS LIKE DAIRY A SOY-BASED ANSWER TO CREAM CHEESE ORIGINAL
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 8, 2005 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Mar 8, 2005 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Jun 22, 2004 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Mar 30, 2004 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| Mar 12, 2004 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Mar 10, 2004 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jan 7, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 7, 2004 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Nov 3, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 9, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 6, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 6, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 2, 2003 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Mar 10, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 10, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 10, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 2, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 23, 2002 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2002 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Jun 10, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 3, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 3, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 15, 2002 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Dec 3, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 4, 2001 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Sep 25, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 13, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |