USPTO serial 76625910
KUGELETTES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MAYES, LAURIE ANN
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 KUGELETTES?
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
Sherman Oaks, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Robert J. Schaap
ROBERT J SCHAAP LAW OFFICES ROBERT J SCHAAP21241 VENTURA BLVD STE 188WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364-2196UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | DOUGH BASED POCKETS WHICH CONTAIN OTHER FOOD BASED FILLINGS IN THE POCKETS OTHER ; THE GOODS ARE OFTEN SOLD IN BAKERIES AND STORES FEATURING JEWISH FOODS; THE TERM "KUGELETTE" IS USED ON KUGEL AND RELATED DOUGH-CONTAINING PRODUCTS WHICH ARE LARGER THAN BITE-SIZE | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2007 | MAB0 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - INCOMPLETE RESPONSE | — |
| Dec 27, 2007 | ABN0 | ABANDONMENT - INCOMPLETE RESPONSE | — |
| May 31, 2007 | RECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON MAILED | — |
| May 31, 2007 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| May 14, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 14, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 14, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 20, 2007 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 10, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 24, 2006 | 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. |
| Nov 23, 2006 | 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. |
| Nov 14, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 16, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 2, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 31, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 31, 2006 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 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. |
| Jul 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. |
| Jul 31, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 18, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |