USPTO serial 78259821
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 710 means the registration was cancelled because a required Section 8 declaration of continued use was not filed within the deadline (including any grace period). The federal registration is no longer active. Evaluate filing a new application if you still use the mark, or petition if cancellation was erroneous. Consult counsel on remaining common-law rights.
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.
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Bruce R. Ewing
Bruce R. Ewing Dorsey & Whitney LLP51 West 52nd StreetNew York, NY 10019UNITED STATES| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 024 | Textile and textile goods, namely, towels, [ tablecloths not of paper, cloth table runners, napkins, place mats, oven mitts and dish cloths; bed covers, namely, sheets, duvet covers and bed blankets; and pillow cases and bed skirts ] | SECTION 8 - CANCELLED | — |
| 025 | [ Clothing, namely, dresses, shirts, jackets, underwear, bras, socks, tank tops, t-shirts, muscle shirts, sweatshirts, sweat pants, pants, leggings, Capri pants, polo shirts, sweatbands, swim suits, gloves, hats, scarves, loungewear; babies' booties, jumpsuits, bunting and cloth bibs; school and industrial uniforms; and aprons ] | SECTION 8 - CANCELLED | — |
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2018 | CAEX | CANCELLED SEC. 8 (10-YR)/EXPIRED SECTION 9 | — |
| Mar 11, 2017 | REM2 | COURTESY REMINDER - SEC. 8 (10-YR)/SEC. 9 E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 2014 | NAS8 | NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF SEC. 8 - E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 2014 | 8.PR | REGISTERED - PARTIAL SEC. 8 (6-YR) ACCEPTED | — |
| Mar 22, 2014 | APRE | CASE ASSIGNED TO POST REGISTRATION PARALEGAL | — |
| Mar 7, 2014 | 8.AF | REGISTERED - SEC. 8 (6-YR) FILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2014 | ES8R | TEAS SECTION 8 RECEIVED | — |
| May 29, 2013 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | 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. |
| May 29, 2013 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 5, 2013 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 11, 2008 | R.SR | REGISTERED-SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER | Your mark is registered on the Supplemental Register, which is available for marks that are not yet distinctive enough for the Principal Register but can still identify a source. Protection is more limited than Principal Register registration but can later support a Principal Register application. |
| Feb 6, 2008 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Feb 4, 2008 | CNTA | APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER | — |
| Dec 26, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 21, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 21, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 21, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 13, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 8, 2007 | PGRR | PETITION GRANTED - RESPONSE RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 19, 2007 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | 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. |
| Apr 19, 2007 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 16, 2007 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 16, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 22, 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. |
| Nov 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. |
| Apr 25, 2006 | 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. |
| Apr 24, 2006 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 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. |
| Apr 4, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 16, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 16, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 12, 2005 | 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 10, 2005 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Sep 10, 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. |
| Aug 24, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 24, 2005 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Aug 10, 2005 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Aug 10, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 8, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 7, 2005 | 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. |
| Feb 4, 2005 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 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. |
| Feb 2, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 28, 2005 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Nov 1, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 14, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 14, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 14, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 14, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 13, 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. |
| Nov 24, 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. |
| Nov 17, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 21, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 21, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |