USPTO serial 78174725
ROSEANNE'S HOT FLASH HOT SAUCE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- PARKER, JUSTINE D
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 ROSEANNE'S HOT FLASH HOT SAUCE?
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.
Mirriam Claire Beezy
MIRIAM CLAIRE BEEZY GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN MACHTING1900 AVE OF THE STARSSTE 2100LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-4590Goods 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 The Trustees of the Roseanne Living Trust, a California Trust, comprising Roseanne Barr, a U.S. Citizen
- Other trademarks owned by The Trustees of the Roseanne Living Trust, a California Trust, comprising Roseanne Barr, a U.S. Citizen
- Other trademarks in Class 029
- Other trademarks in Class 030
- Similar marks named ROSEANNE'S HOT FLASH HOT SAUCE
- Prosecution event MAB2 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2006 | 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. |
| Dec 21, 2006 | 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. |
| May 25, 2006 | 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. |
| May 24, 2006 | 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. |
| May 19, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 27, 2005 | SUPC | STATEMENT OF USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Sep 19, 2005 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jul 11, 2005 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Jul 11, 2005 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Jul 11, 2005 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 11, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 8, 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. |
| Jun 8, 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. |
| Mar 9, 2005 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Sep 27, 2004 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Sep 10, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 7, 2004 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Mar 9, 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. |
| Dec 16, 2003 | 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. |
| Nov 26, 2003 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Oct 14, 2003 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Sep 2, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 2, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 9, 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. |
| Mar 21, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 13, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |