USPTO serial 76515532
CRAVER'S COOKIES THE COOKIE WITH THE RICH, CHOCOLATEY BOTTOM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WELLS, KELLEY L
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 CRAVER'S COOKIES THE COOKIE WITH THE RICH, CHOCOLATEY BOTTOM?
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.
Preston C. Regehr
PRESTON C REGEHR TECHLAW VENTURES PLLC333 S 520 W STE 220LINDON, UT 84042UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | Food products, namely, cookies | ACTIVE | Apr 15, 2002 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2007 | 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. |
| May 15, 2007 | 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. |
| Oct 16, 2006 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-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. |
| Oct 16, 2006 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 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. |
| Sep 27, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 5, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 5, 2006 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 5, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 2, 2006 | 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. |
| Mar 2, 2006 | CNRT | 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. |
| Feb 9, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 13, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 3, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 2, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 27, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 7, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 7, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 7, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 7, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 5, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 6, 2004 | FAXX | FAX SENT | — |
| Dec 2, 2003 | 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 29, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |