USPTO serial 76390177
WHY NOT GOLF?
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KLASS, JEREMY
- Law office
- PETITIONS OFFICE
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 WHY NOT GOLF??
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.
Michael L. Diaz. Esq.
MICHAEL L DIAZ. ESQ MICHAEL L DIAZ, PC555 REPUBLIC DRSTE 200PLANO, TX 75074Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | aprons; athletic footwear; baseball caps; bathrobes; beachwear; blazers; body suits; boxer shorts; underwear briefs; cardigans; coats; coveralls; footwear; golf shirts; gym shorts; hats; jackets; jeans; jogging suits; head wear; neck ties; night shirts; pajamas; pants; polo shirts; rain wear; robes; shirts; shoes; skirts; socks; sweaters; swim wear; and underclothes | ACTIVE | — |
| 041 | Videotape production, audio recording and production; radio entertainment production; motion picture film production; production of radio and television programs | 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.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 24, 2005 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Jan 24, 2005 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Jun 7, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 7, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 25, 2004 | 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. |
| Jul 21, 2003 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Jul 14, 2003 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Jul 14, 2003 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Jan 14, 2003 | 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. |
| Oct 22, 2002 | 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. |
| Oct 2, 2002 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Aug 6, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Aug 6, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |