USPTO serial 76428120
REEF
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MACIOL II, EUGENE VALENTINE-JO
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 REEF?
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.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
David N. Makous,
TAWNYA WOJCIECHOWSKI SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLPFOURTH FL650 TOWN CTR DRCOSTA MESA, CA 92626Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | Candy, bread, bakery goods, green based herbal beverages, breakfast cereals, cakes, pies, popped popcorn, cereal based snack foods, chewing gum, corn chips, chocolate, chocolate food beverages not being dairy-based or vegetable based, coffee, frozen confections, cookies, crackers, pasta, hot dog sandwiches, frozen yogurt, custards, ice cream, granola, honey, noodles, chocolate covered nuts, oatmeal, pancakes, pastries, peppers, hot sauces, pizza, pretzels, puddings, sandwiches, frozen yogurt and tea | 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 10, 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. |
| Jan 8, 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 19, 2004 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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 19, 2004 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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 3, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Aug 15, 2003 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 9, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 28, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 28, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 26, 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. |
| Nov 8, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 7, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |