USPTO serial 76976098
BREAKUP GIRL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WELLS, CHRISTOPHER
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 BREAKUP GIRL?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Jan Kleeman, Esq.
JAN KLEEMAN ESQ SCAROLA REAVIS & PARENT888 SEVENTH AVE 45TH FLNEW YORK, NY 10019UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | Clothing, namely, hats, tee shirts, sweatshirts, boots, shoes, slippers, visors, bandanas, scarves, jackets, coats, pullover, sweaters, vests, pants, jeans, sweat pants, shorts, dresses, bathing suits, beach and bathing cover-ups, pajamas, bathrobes, socks, sneakers, sandals, underwear, bodysuits, leotards, tights, leggings, sweatbands, belts, Halloween costumes, masquerade costumes, and masks sold in connection therewith | ACTIVE | Jun 1, 1996 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2005 | 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. |
| Mar 7, 2005 | 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. |
| Nov 12, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 19, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 7, 2004 | 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. |
| Oct 27, 2003 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Aug 13, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 13, 2003 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 13, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 25, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 11, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 11, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 10, 2002 | 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. |
| May 31, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 17, 2002 | PCGR | PETITION TO DIRECTOR GRANTED | — |
| May 2, 2002 | PCRC | PETITION TO DIRECTOR RECEIVED | — |