USPTO serial 76419248
BEE MY VALET
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LEHKER, DAWN FELDMAN
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 111 - 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 BEE MY VALET?
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.
JUDITH M. SHAMPANIER
JUDITH M SHAMPANIER ESANU KATSKY KORINS & SIGER, LLP605 THIRD AVENEW YORK, NY 10158UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 021 | toilet brushes, toilet brush holders, toilet paper holders, tooth brush holders, tooth paste holders, towel holders, towel bars, towel racks, cups, soap dishes and dispensers for liquid soap | ACTIVE | Dec 31, 2004 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12, 2005 | 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 12, 2005 | 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. |
| May 13, 2005 | 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 12, 2005 | CNRT | SU - NON-FINAL ACTION - WRITTEN | 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 11, 2005 | SUPC | STATEMENT OF USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Apr 28, 2005 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Apr 28, 2005 | EISU | TEAS STATEMENT OF USE RECEIVED | The applicant filed a Statement of Use with specimens showing the mark in actual commerce. The USPTO will review the filing for compliance. If accepted, the mark can proceed to registration; if deficient, the USPTO may issue a requirement or office action. |
| Dec 1, 2004 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Nov 22, 2004 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Nov 22, 2004 | 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. |
| Apr 26, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 21, 2004 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Apr 21, 2004 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Apr 21, 2004 | 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. |
| Nov 21, 2003 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Nov 14, 2003 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Nov 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. |
| May 27, 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. |
| Mar 4, 2003 | 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. |
| Feb 12, 2003 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Dec 17, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Dec 13, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 21, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 21, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 27, 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. |
| Sep 20, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |