USPTO serial 78054551
EYE CONS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- THOMAS, AMY E
- Law office
- DIVISIONAL UNIT
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 EYE CONS?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Anthony O. Cormier
ANTHONY O CORMIER LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY O CORMIER5850 CANOGA AVE STE 400WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367UNITED STATESGoods and services
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2005 | 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. |
| Jan 25, 2005 | 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. |
| Apr 21, 2004 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Apr 21, 2004 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Mar 31, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 30, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 18, 2004 | EISU | TEAS STATEMENT OF USE RECEIVED | The applicant filed a Statement of Use with specimens showing the mark in actual commerce. The USPTO will review the filing for compliance. If accepted, the mark can proceed to registration; if deficient, the USPTO may issue a requirement or office action. |
| Mar 18, 2004 | 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. |
| Oct 14, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 17, 2003 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Sep 17, 2003 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2003 | 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. |
| Mar 18, 2003 | NOAM | NOA 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. |
| Dec 24, 2002 | 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. |
| Dec 4, 2002 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Oct 24, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Oct 24, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 21, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 19, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 19, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 4, 2002 | 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. |
| Feb 13, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 13, 2001 | 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 27, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |