USPTO serial 78291034
R. W. GARCIA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MIZELLE HOWARD, DEZMONA JULYE
- Law office
- OFFICE OF TRADEMARK PROGRAM CONTROL
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 R. W. GARCIA?
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.
Gail M. Hashimoto
GAIL M HASHIMOTO HOPKINS & CARLEY70 S 1ST STSAN JOSE, CA 95113-2406UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | SNACK FOODS, NAMELY, TORTILLA CHIPS AND CORN-BASED CHIP SNACK FOODS | ACTIVE | Jun 1, 1983 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2010 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Aug 17, 2010 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Aug 19, 2005 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Aug 17, 2005 | LOAP | LETTER OF ABANDONMENT PROCESSED | — |
| Aug 17, 2005 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| May 6, 2005 | GECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| May 6, 2005 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Apr 20, 2005 | ATRQ | ATTORNEY REVIEW/DECISION ON AMENDMENT REQUIRED | — |
| Apr 20, 2005 | ATRQ | ATTORNEY REVIEW/DECISION ON AMENDMENT REQUIRED | — |
| Apr 6, 2005 | 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. |
| Apr 6, 2005 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Apr 6, 2005 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Apr 6, 2005 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Oct 6, 2004 | 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. |
| Oct 6, 2004 | 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. |
| Sep 13, 2004 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 4, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 4, 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. |
| Mar 4, 2004 | 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. |
| Mar 2, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |