USPTO serial 76613952
UNION PARK
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HELFMAN, JUDITH MICHELLE
- 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 UNION PARK?
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.
Jennifer K. Craft, Esq. and Robert B. Kouchoukos, Esq.
Jennifer K. Craft Gordon & Silver, Ltd.3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, 9th FloorLas Vegas, NV 89169UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Real estate marketing, promoting and advertising services, namely, developing and distributing materials regarding real estate and online and live services featuring presentations, tours and consultation regarding residential real estate communities, commercial real estate communities, education facilities, medical facilities, recreational facilities, parking and transportation facilities, social facilities and community facilities; business management and consultation services | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2011 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 12, 2008 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 6, 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. |
| Dec 6, 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. |
| Nov 9, 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. |
| Nov 9, 2007 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 19, 2006 | 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. |
| Sep 26, 2006 | 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 6, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Aug 3, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jul 28, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 21, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jul 20, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 20, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 20, 2006 | 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. |
| Jan 4, 2006 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Dec 20, 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. |
| Dec 20, 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. |
| Dec 14, 2005 | DMCC | DATA MODIFICATION COMPLETED | — |
| Dec 13, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 2, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 14, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 14, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 13, 2005 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| May 10, 2005 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Apr 26, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 13, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |