USPTO serial 76610531
HERITAGE COLLECTION
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SNAPP, TINA LOUISE
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 HERITAGE COLLECTION?
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.
Kristin Jordan Harkins
KRISTIN JORDAN HARKINS CONLEY ROSE PC5700 GRANITE PKWY STE 330PLANO, TX 75024-6623UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 022 | FIBER FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PILLOWS, CRAFTS, TOYS, AND HOME DECORATIONS; FIBER IN THE SHAPE OF PILLOW FORMRS FOR USE IN THE MANUFAUCTURE OF PILLOWS; AND FIBER BATTING FOR USE IN QUILTS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 6, 2007 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Aug 30, 2007 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Aug 30, 2007 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jul 2, 2007 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Jul 7, 2006 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jul 6, 2006 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING A FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Jun 26, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 16, 2006 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jun 16, 2006 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jun 15, 2006 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jun 6, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 6, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 2, 2005 | 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. |
| Dec 1, 2005 | 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. |
| Oct 11, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 19, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 19, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 1, 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 31, 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 31, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 6, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 20, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 20, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 16, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |