Drawing for BOTANICALLY BASED

USPTO serial 76339766

BOTANICALLY BASED

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
MICHOS, JOHN E
Law office
FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)

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 BOTANICALLY BASED?

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.

Kit M. Stetina

KIT M STETINA STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER75 ENTERPRISE, STE 250ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
004Candles, and candle wax and wicks, sold as components of candlesACTIVE—

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.

Prosecution history

DateCodeEventWhat it means
Jun 4, 2004CFITCASE FILE IN TICRS—
Jun 4, 2004CFITCASE FILE IN TICRS—
Jun 2, 2004EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Jun 2, 2004EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Mar 9, 2004ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Mar 9, 2004EXAREXPARTE APPEAL AFFIRMED/REVERSED IN PART—
Sep 3, 2003CNESEXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED—
Jul 8, 2003JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Apr 23, 2003CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
Dec 26, 2002JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Dec 26, 2002EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Dec 11, 2002EXAFEXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB—
Nov 22, 2002CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Nov 22, 2002MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
Jun 5, 2002CNFRFINAL REFUSAL MAILEDA 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.
Apr 15, 2002CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Feb 22, 2002CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION MAILEDA 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.
Jan 31, 2002DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance