Drawing for PET COSMETICS

USPTO serial 76535839

PET COSMETICS

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 601
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
CAIN, CATHERINE P
Law office
TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED

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 PET COSMETICS?

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.

Maribeth Deavers

MARIBETH DEAVERS ISAAC BRANT LEDMAN & TEETOR LLP250 E BROAD ST STE 900COLUMBUS, OH 43215UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
003Animal grooming products namely, non-medicated, non-veterinary shampoos, conditioners, brushing sprays and cosmeticsACTIVEJun 1, 1996

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

DateCodeEventWhat it means
Apr 28, 2005MAB1ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - EXPRESS ABANDONMENT—
Apr 28, 2005ABN1ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED—
Apr 11, 2005LOAPLETTER OF ABANDONMENT PROCESSED—
Apr 11, 2005MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
Apr 4, 2005CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
Apr 3, 2005CNCFACTION CONTINUING A FINAL - COMPLETED—
Mar 29, 2005TCCATEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED—
Mar 29, 2005PETGPETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED—
Jan 25, 2005FAXXFAX SENT—
Jan 24, 2005PETRPETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED—
Jan 24, 2005MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
Jan 13, 2005MAB2ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPONDThe 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 13, 2005ABN2ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSEThe 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.
Jun 16, 2004GNFRFINAL REFUSAL E-MAILEDA 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.
Jun 1, 2004CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Jun 1, 2004CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Jun 1, 2004MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
Feb 18, 2004GNRTNON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILEDA 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 17, 2004DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance