USPTO serial 78074138
PIZZA PULL-APARTS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BERK, STEVEN R
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 PIZZA PULL-APARTS?
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.
Dyann L. Kostello
DYANN L KOSTELLO MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP100 E WISCONSIN AVEMILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4108UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | Appetizers, hors d'oeuvres and snacks containing sauce, meat, cheese and vegetable fillings | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2004 | 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. |
| Nov 30, 2004 | 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. |
| Apr 14, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 7, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 16, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 5, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 30, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 8, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 8, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 18, 2002 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 4, 2002 | 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. |
| Mar 11, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 8, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 10, 2001 | 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 6, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |