USPTO serial 76550648
ARMANDO CERELLO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SMIGA, HOWARD
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 ARMANDO CERELLO?
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.
Stewart J. Bellus
STEWART J BELLUS COLLARD & ROE, PC1077 NORTHERN BLVDROSLYN, NY 11576UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 020 | FURNITURE; FURNITURE ARTICLES IN GENERAL, NAMELY, SIDEBOARDS, BUILT IN CLOSETS, BENCHES, BAR BENCHES, CRADLES, BUNK BEDS, HEADBOARDS FOR BEDS, CHAIRS, DOUBLE BEDS, BEDS, TEA CARTS, HAT RACKS, COMMODES, WRITING-DESK, BOOKSHELVES, TABLE LEAVES, DRAFTING TABLES, TABLES, SHELVES, ARMCHAIR, SOFA, TEA-TRAY, CHEST, FOLDING SCREEN, HAMPERS, DRAWERS, FURNITURE FRAMES, MAGAZINE RACKS, BREAD BASKET, SUPPORT NOT OF PRECIOUS METAL FOR CRUET STANDS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 7, 2006 | 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. |
| Jun 7, 2006 | 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. |
| Nov 8, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 8, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 29, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 29, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 12, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 8, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 29, 2004 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 10, 2004 | EMRV | EMAIL RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 9, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 22, 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 19, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 10, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |