USPTO serial 77826273
APERIO BEAUTY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MARTIN, CHRISTINE C
- 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 APERIO BEAUTY?
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
Belmont, CA
Belmont, CA
Belmont, CA
Belmont, CA
Belmont, CA
Belmont, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Christopher J. Day
Christopher J. Day Law Office of Christopher Day9977 North 90th Street, Suite 155Scottsdale, AZ 85258UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | Aromatherapy sprays; Bubble bath; Cuticle conditioners; Eye cream; Eye gels; Facial creams; Facial lotion; Facial masks; Facial scrubs; Hand lotions; Hand soaps; Nail hardeners; Nail polish; Non-medicated bath salts; Non-medicated body soaks; Non-medicated foot lotions; Potpourri; Sachets; Scented body spray; Skin soap; Skin toners | 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.
- Other trademarks owned by Wang, Kevin
- Other trademarks owned by Wang, Kevin
- Other trademarks owned by Hung, Jung-Hung
- Other trademarks owned by Hung, Jung-Hung
- Other trademarks owned by Chen, Chih-Ying
- Other trademarks owned by Chen, Chih-Ying
- Other trademarks in Class 003
- Similar marks named APERIO BEAUTY
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2, 2012 | 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. |
| Jul 2, 2012 | 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. |
| Dec 6, 2011 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 5, 2011 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Nov 29, 2011 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Nov 29, 2011 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Aug 18, 2011 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 17, 2011 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 17, 2011 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Jul 27, 2011 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Jul 27, 2011 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jul 27, 2011 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 5, 2011 | 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. |
| Jul 5, 2011 | 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. |
| May 30, 2011 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Nov 30, 2010 | NOAM | NOA E-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. |
| Oct 5, 2010 | NPUB | OFFICIAL GAZETTE PUBLICATION CONFIRMATION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 5, 2010 | 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. |
| Aug 30, 2010 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jul 30, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 16, 2010 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jul 15, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 15, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 15, 2010 | 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. |
| Jul 15, 2010 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jul 15, 2010 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 2, 2010 | 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. |
| Jul 2, 2010 | 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. |
| Dec 4, 2009 | 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. |
| Dec 4, 2009 | 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. |
| Dec 4, 2009 | 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 4, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 18, 2009 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2009 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Sep 17, 2009 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |