USPTO serial 76543643
WEST COAST CHOPPERS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SUSSMAN, RONALD
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE SECTION
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 WEST COAST CHOPPERS?
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
Long Beach, CA
Long Beach, CA
Long Beach, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Marvin H. Kleinberg
Marvin H. Kleinberg Kleinberg & Lerner, LLPSuite 10802049 Century Park EastLos Angeles, CA 90067Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 012 | Structural parts for automobiles, namely, motors and engines, directional signals, door handles, roof racks, spare wheel holders, windshield sunshades, interior trim, sun roofs, bumpers, bug shields, cargo carriers | 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.
- Other trademarks owned by VANILLA GORILLA, L.P.
- Other trademarks owned by James, Jesse
- Other trademarks owned by James, Jesse
- Other trademarks in Class 012
- Similar marks named WEST COAST CHOPPERS
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2008 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - 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. |
| Aug 27, 2008 | 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. |
| Dec 21, 2007 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 21, 2007 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Dec 21, 2007 | 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. |
| Aug 8, 2007 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Aug 8, 2007 | COAR | TEAS CHANGE OF OWNER ADDRESS RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 25, 2007 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 25, 2007 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Jun 25, 2007 | 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. |
| Jun 8, 2007 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Jun 8, 2007 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 26, 2007 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 28, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 27, 2007 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Feb 27, 2007 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Feb 27, 2007 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 22, 2007 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - 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. |
| Feb 22, 2007 | 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. |
| Feb 21, 2007 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Feb 8, 2007 | INCD | ITU OFFICE ACTION ISSUED FOR DIVISIONAL REQUEST | — |
| Feb 7, 2007 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 31, 2007 | INCD | ITU OFFICE ACTION ISSUED FOR DIVISIONAL REQUEST | — |
| Dec 21, 2006 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Dec 21, 2006 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 21, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 22, 2006 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 22, 2006 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Jun 22, 2006 | 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. |
| Jun 7, 2006 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Dec 27, 2005 | 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 4, 2005 | 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. |
| Sep 14, 2005 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jun 19, 2005 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jun 19, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 27, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 25, 2005 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2005 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| May 24, 2005 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 25, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 9, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 2005 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Nov 19, 2004 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL 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. |
| Nov 19, 2004 | 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 29, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 14, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 30, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 30, 2004 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 20, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 20, 2004 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 26, 2004 | 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 24, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |