USPTO serial 78404885
RD FARM FRESH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FAIRBANKS, RONALD L
- Law office
- TTAB
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with RD FARM FRESH?
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
Gen. Santos City 9500, PH
Gen. Santos City 9500, PH
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lawrence E. Apolzon
Robert A. Becker Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.866 United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | frozen fish, prawns, shrimp, shellfish and other seafoods; processed fish, prawns, shrimp, shellfish and other seafoods; tinned fish, prawns, shrimp, shellfish and other seafoods; and preserved fish, prawns, shrimp, shellfish and other seafoods | ABANDONED | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 3, 2009 | MAB4 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - INTER PARTES DECISION | — |
| Aug 1, 2009 | ABN4 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER INTER PARTES DECISION | — |
| Aug 1, 2009 | OP.T | OPPOSITION TERMINATED NO. 999999 | — |
| Aug 1, 2009 | OP.S | OPPOSITION SUSTAINED NO. 999999 | — |
| Jun 26, 2009 | OP.I | OPPOSITION INSTITUTED NO. 999999 | — |
| Apr 16, 2009 | ETOF | EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 31, 2009 | 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. |
| Mar 11, 2009 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Feb 23, 2009 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Feb 20, 2009 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jan 29, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 29, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 28, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 22, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 21, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 18, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 15, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 15, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 14, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 14, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 11, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 13, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 12, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 31, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 31, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 29, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 29, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 29, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 3, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 18, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 30, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 27, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Apr 10, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 15, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 15, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 6, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 26, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 5, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 3, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 21, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 4, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 4, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 29, 2004 | 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 27, 2004 | 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 13, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 30, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |