USPTO serial 76606941
ODILLE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RIRIE, VERNA BETH
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 104 - 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 ODILLE?
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
London EC2A 4PN, GB
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Glenn A. Gundersen
GLENN A GUNDERSEN DECHERT LLP1717 ARCH ST STE 4000BELL ATLANTIC TWRPHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2793Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 020 | Furniture; mirrors; picture frames; cushions; fitted fabric furniture covers; photo frames, boxes of wood or plastic; coat hangers and clothes hangers; jewelry cases not of precious metal | ACTIVE | — |
| 024 | Textile goods, namely throws and fabric wraps; bed and table covers; cushion covers | ACTIVE | — |
| 025 | Clothing, namely lingerie, negligees, chemises, pajamas, night gowns, dresses, skirts, dress slacks, blouses, suits and blazers; footwear; and headgear, namely hats and caps | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 5, 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. |
| Jan 4, 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. |
| Jun 5, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 5, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 2, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 26, 2005 | CRML | CORRESPONDENCE MAILED | — |
| Oct 26, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 7, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 3, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 3, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 30, 2005 | 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 29, 2005 | 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. |
| Mar 16, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 24, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |