USPTO serial 78090262
NELLYVILLE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HARDY LUDLOW, TARAH KIM
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 110 - 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 NELLYVILLE?
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.
Herman F. Rusche
HERMAN F RUSCHE HUSCH & EPPENBERGER, LLC190 CARONDELET PLZ STE 600ST LOUIS, MO 63105-3441UNITED 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.
- Other trademarks owned by NELLY, INC.
- Other trademarks owned by Flush Entertainment, L.L.C.
- Other trademarks owned by Flush Entertainment, L.L.C.
- Other trademarks in Class 009
- Other trademarks in Class 016
- Other trademarks in Class 025
- Similar marks named NELLYVILLE
- Prosecution event MAB2 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2008 | 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. |
| Apr 8, 2008 | 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. |
| Sep 11, 2007 | 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. |
| Sep 11, 2007 | CNRT | SU - 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 10, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 1, 2007 | SUPC | STATEMENT OF USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Jul 2, 2007 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Jul 2, 2007 | 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. |
| Feb 24, 2007 | EX5G | SOU EXTENSION 5 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 19, 2006 | EXT5 | SOU EXTENSION 5 FILED | — |
| Dec 19, 2006 | 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. |
| Jun 22, 2006 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 22, 2006 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Jun 22, 2006 | 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. |
| Jan 27, 2006 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Jan 4, 2006 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Jan 4, 2006 | 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. |
| Jul 6, 2005 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Jul 6, 2005 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jul 6, 2005 | 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. |
| Jan 10, 2005 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 22, 2004 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Dec 22, 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. |
| Jul 6, 2004 | 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. |
| Apr 13, 2004 | 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. |
| Mar 24, 2004 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Feb 2, 2004 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jan 21, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 14, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 14, 2004 | EMRV | EMAIL RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 14, 2003 | 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 14, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 7, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 7, 2003 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Mar 3, 2003 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Feb 21, 2003 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Aug 20, 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. |
| Jul 25, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 25, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 11, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 11, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 25, 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. |
| Jan 25, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |