USPTO serial 78117732
DUTCH MILL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SPILS, CAROL A
- 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 DUTCH MILL?
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
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Matthew Stavish
Matthew Stavish Berenato White & StavishSuite 2406550 Rock Spring Dr.Bethesda, MD 20817Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | DRINKING YOGHURT WITH ASSORTED FRUIT FLAVOR | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2008 | 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. |
| Aug 7, 2008 | 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 7, 2008 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Feb 29, 2008 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 20, 2008 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Feb 20, 2008 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Feb 20, 2008 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 20, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 20, 2007 | 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, 2007 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| May 22, 2007 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| May 22, 2007 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| May 22, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 1, 2006 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 1, 2006 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Dec 1, 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 6, 2006 | 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. |
| Mar 14, 2006 | 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. |
| Feb 22, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jan 31, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jan 27, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 24, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jan 3, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 14, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 14, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 10, 2005 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 22, 2005 | GRML | CORRESPONDENCE E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 22, 2005 | 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. |
| Apr 1, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 17, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 2, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 23, 2003 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 20, 2003 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Apr 23, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 23, 2003 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 23, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 28, 2003 | 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 27, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 19, 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. |
| Jul 12, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |