USPTO serial 78398111
BUBBLE TECH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DAHLING, KRISTIN M
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
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 BUBBLE TECH?
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.
James M. Slattery (Reg. No. 28,380)
JAMES M SLATTERY (REG. NO. 28,380) BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH LLPPO BOX 747FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | Shoes, boots, sporting shoes, shoe-soles, shoe-insoles, shoes-uppers, shoes pads, ski boots, athletic shoes, golf shoes | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2006 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 9, 2006 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Aug 18, 2006 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jun 22, 2006 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Mar 8, 2006 | GECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 8, 2006 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Mar 2, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 17, 2006 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Feb 17, 2006 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Aug 11, 2005 | 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. |
| Aug 11, 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. |
| Jul 22, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 18, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 18, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 18, 2005 | 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. |
| Jan 18, 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. |
| Nov 2, 2004 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 2, 2004 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 29, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 16, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |