USPTO serial 77054899
VITALLI
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- COWARD, JEFFERY
- 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 VITALLI?
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.
Perla M. Kuhn
PERLA M KUHN HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP1 BATTERY PARK PLZNEW YORK, NY 10004-1405UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | Make-up, namely, lipstick, eyeliner, eye shadow, blush, mascara and nail polish; hair shampoo; hair styling gel; makeup remover; makeup remover wipes; body cream and face creams | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 27, 2009 | 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. |
| May 27, 2009 | 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. |
| Oct 29, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 29, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 29, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 29, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 25, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 24, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 5, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 5, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 5, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 29, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 29, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 28, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 28, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 28, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 5, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |