USPTO serial 78438822
KROPLA BESKIDU
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MCDOWELL, MATTHEW J
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
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 KROPLA BESKIDU?
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.
Gregg G. Brandon
JULIE A MCWHIRTER KING & SPALDING LLP1100 LOUISIANA 40TH FLHOUSTON, TX 77002UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 032 | beverages, namely, drinking waters, flavored waters, mineral and aerated waters; and other non alcoholic beverages, namely, soft drinks, energy drinks and sports drinks; fruit drinks and juices; syrups, concentrates and powders for making beverages, namely, flavored waters, mineral and aerated waters, soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks, fruit drinks and juices | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 31, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 30, 2007 | 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. |
| May 24, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 24, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 24, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 4, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 1, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 1, 2006 | 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. |
| Nov 1, 2006 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Nov 1, 2006 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 16, 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. |
| Oct 14, 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. |
| Mar 16, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 16, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 9, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 13, 2005 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 31, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 30, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 11, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 8, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 8, 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. |
| Feb 8, 2005 | 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. |
| Feb 7, 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. |
| Jan 25, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 8, 2004 | AMPX | PRELIMINARY/VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT - ENTERED | — |
| Oct 8, 2004 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 6, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 23, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 23, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 28, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |