USPTO serial 76366019
BE THE BALL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FROMM, MARTHA L
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with BE THE BALL?
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
Salt Lake City, UT
Salt Lake City, UT
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
M STEPHEN BROWN CEO
M STEPHEN BROWN CEO BE THE BALL INC5711 HOLLADAY BLVDSALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121UNITED STATESGoods and services
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 BE THE BALL, Inc.
- Other trademarks owned by BE THE BALL, Inc.
- Other trademarks in Class 009
- Other trademarks in Class 018
- Other trademarks in Class 024
- Other trademarks in Class 028
- Similar marks named BE THE BALL
- Prosecution event MAB2 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5, 2006 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Dec 5, 2006 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Apr 19, 2006 | GNSF | SUBSEQUENT FINAL EMAILED | — |
| Apr 19, 2006 | CFRC | SUBSEQUENT FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 6, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 31, 2006 | PGRR | PETITION GRANTED - RESPONSE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 31, 2006 | ISPO | WITHDRAWN FROM ISSUE - PETITIONS OFFICE REQUEST | — |
| Mar 16, 2006 | ATRQ | ATTORNEY REVIEW/DECISION ON AMENDMENT REQUIRED | — |
| Mar 14, 2006 | 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 11, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 11, 2006 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 11, 2006 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Mar 11, 2006 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 11, 2006 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Feb 22, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Feb 1, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jan 13, 2006 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jan 12, 2006 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 2, 2004 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 2, 2004 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 28, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 28, 2004 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Feb 10, 2004 | 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. |
| Dec 8, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 29, 2003 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 29, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 22, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 7, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 7, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 20, 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. |
| May 10, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 1, 2002 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 1, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |