USPTO serial 78479320
POSITANO COAST BY ALDO LAMBERTI
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- VOHRA, SANJEEV KUMAR
- 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 POSITANO COAST BY ALDO LAMBERTI?
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
Cherry Hill, NJ
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Alison P. Grossman
DAVID M PERRY BLANK ROME LLPONE LOGAN SQ 9TH FLPHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-6998UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 043 | RESTAURANT SERVICES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 29, 2007 | PCDE | PETITION TO DIRECTOR DENIED | — |
| Oct 3, 2006 | APET | ASSIGNED TO PETITION STAFF | — |
| Aug 16, 2006 | PCRC | PETITION TO DIRECTOR RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 16, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 14, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 25, 2006 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| May 8, 2006 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| May 8, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 9, 2005 | 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. |
| Nov 9, 2005 | 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. |
| Nov 9, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 5, 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. |
| Apr 5, 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. |
| Apr 5, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 14, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |