USPTO serial 78094022
FRESH THINKING...OUT OF THE BOX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MEIER, SHARON A
- 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 FRESH THINKING...OUT OF THE BOX?
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
Markham, Ontario, CA
Markham, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Jan Christensen
JAN CHRISTENSEN SYMBUS LAW GROUP, LLC3398 GOVERNORS CRST CTALEXANDRIA, VA 22310UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | PACKAGED MEAL KITS CONSISTING PRIMARILY OF FORMED VEGETABLE PROTEIN, CHICKEN, SAUCES, SALSA, AND ALSO INCLUDING RICE AND TORTILLAS | ACTIVE | — |
| 030 | PRE-PACKAGED MIXES FOR MAKING BAKERY DESSERT GOODS; PRE-PACKAGED SALAD MIXES CONSISTING PRIMARILY OF SALAD DRESSINGS AND ALSO INCLUDING SALAD TOPPINGS, NAMELY, CROUTONS, BACON BITS, NUTS, SUN-DRIED TOMATOES, RAISINS, AND CHEESE | 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 Linsey Foods Ltd.
- Other trademarks owned by Linsey Foods Ltd.
- Other trademarks in Class 029
- Other trademarks in Class 030
- Similar marks named FRESH THINKING...OUT OF THE BOX
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 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. |
| May 4, 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. |
| Aug 31, 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. |
| Jun 8, 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. |
| May 19, 2004 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Mar 22, 2004 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Feb 12, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 26, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 26, 2004 | 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 29, 2003 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-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. |
| Jun 23, 2003 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| May 14, 2003 | PETL | COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM PETITIONER | — |
| May 14, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 14, 2003 | FAXX | FAX SENT | — |
| Apr 14, 2003 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2003 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 21, 2002 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 13, 2002 | 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. |
| Mar 12, 2002 | 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. |
| Mar 6, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |