USPTO serial 78329136
GIARDINO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LAMOTHE, LESLEY
- Law office
- PETITIONS OFFICE
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 GIARDINO?
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.
Brent D. Sanders
BRENT D SANDERS PERKINS COIE LLP1201 THIRD AVE STE 4800SEATTLE, WA 98101UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 031 | Fresh vegetables | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2007 | PRRD | PETITION RECONSIDERATION REQUEST DENIED | — |
| Feb 21, 2007 | PRRR | PETITION RECONSIDERATION REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 21, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 15, 2006 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Dec 6, 2006 | APET | ASSIGNED TO PETITION STAFF | — |
| Nov 17, 2006 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 17, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 31, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 17, 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. |
| Aug 17, 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. |
| Jan 6, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 6, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 3, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 15, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 15, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 13, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 10, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 10, 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. |
| Jul 8, 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. |
| Jul 1, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 10, 2003 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |