USPTO serial 77491720
FUR BERRIES BABIES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SHARPER JR, SAM
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 108 - 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 FUR BERRIES BABIES?
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
Toronto Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Edward M. Weisz
EDWARD M. WEISZ Cozen O'Connor277 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10172UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 028 | Plush toys, namely, plush balls that can be transformed into plush animals | 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 1, 2012 | 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 1, 2012 | 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 4, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 4, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 4, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 23, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 25, 2011 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 22, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 16, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 16, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 3, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 28, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 20, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 20, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 20, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 16, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 16, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 16, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 9, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 9, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 5, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 5, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 5, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 5, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 5, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 5, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 14, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 11, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 10, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 10, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 10, 2009 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 9, 2009 | 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. |
| Sep 15, 2008 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Sep 15, 2008 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Sep 15, 2008 | 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. |
| Sep 11, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 11, 2008 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Jun 10, 2008 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |