USPTO serial 78333752
Serial No. 78333752
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RINGLE, JAMES W
- 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 Serial No. 78333752?
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.
Roger S. Thompson
Roger S. Thompson Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane LLPSuite 1210551 Fifth AvenueNew York, NY 10176Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | (Based on Use in Commerce) meat products, namely, chicken bologna, veal bologna, beef bologna, pork bologna, pork salami, kielbasa, canned roast beef in gravy and marinated vegetables; (Based on Intent to Use) , fruits and vegetables; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies; jams; and side dishes made from processed fruits | ACTIVE | Oct 7, 2002 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 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. |
| Sep 3, 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. |
| Jan 23, 2008 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Jan 3, 2008 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Jan 3, 2008 | 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 27, 2007 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 27, 2007 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Jun 27, 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. |
| Mar 27, 2007 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Mar 27, 2007 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Mar 19, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 21, 2007 | INCD | ITU OFFICE ACTION ISSUED FOR DIVISIONAL REQUEST | — |
| Jan 5, 2007 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 5, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 3, 2007 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jan 3, 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. |
| Jun 30, 2006 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 30, 2006 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Jun 30, 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. |
| Jan 3, 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. |
| Oct 11, 2005 | 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. |
| Sep 21, 2005 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jul 2, 2005 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jul 1, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 29, 2005 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jun 29, 2005 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 29, 2005 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 29, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 23, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 23, 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. |
| Dec 23, 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. |
| Dec 23, 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. |
| Dec 23, 2004 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 16, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 16, 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. |
| Jun 16, 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. |
| Jun 11, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 23, 2003 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |