USPTO serial 76595367
MAYA & MIGUEL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FROMM, MARTHA L
- 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 MAYA & MIGUEL?
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.
Edward H. Rosenthal
EDWARD H ROSENTHAL C/O FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ PC488 MADISON AVENEW YORK, NY 10022UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 021 | Plates, bowls, mugs, beverage glasses, cups, paper plates, bowls and cups; thermoplastic and melamine plates, bowls and cups; lunch boxes and lunch pails, cake molds, cupcake picks and rings, cookie jars, decorative plates, porcelain figurines, canteens, sports bottles sold empty, holiday ornaments made of porcelain or ceramic; hair combs and hair brushes, tooth brushes, toothbrush holders, lotion dispensers, soap dispensers, soap dishes, tissue box covers, bath sponges, bath brushes | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 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. |
| Apr 4, 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. |
| Aug 25, 2006 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 8, 2006 | PGEX | PETITION GRANTED - EXTENSION REQUEST FILED | — |
| Jul 26, 2006 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jul 25, 2006 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Jul 10, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 22, 2006 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| May 22, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 28, 2006 | 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. |
| Mar 28, 2006 | 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. |
| Jan 26, 2006 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Jul 26, 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. |
| May 3, 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. |
| Apr 13, 2005 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Feb 8, 2005 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Feb 7, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 7, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 21, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 15, 2004 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Nov 13, 2004 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Nov 13, 2004 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 5, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 5, 2004 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 19, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 19, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 28, 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. |
| Sep 27, 2004 | 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. |
| Sep 27, 2004 | 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. |
| Sep 27, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 17, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |