USPTO serial 78490795
ROSNER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GARDNER, DAWNA BERYL
- 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 ROSNER?
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
D-85055 Ingolstadt, DE
D-85055 Ingolstadt, DE
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Amy B. Goldsmith
AMY B. GOLDSMITH GOTTLIEB, RACKMAN & REISMAN, P.C.270 MADISON AVENUE, 8TH FLOORNEW YORK, NY 10016-0601UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | Clothing, namely, shirts, hats, coats, pants, footwear, t-shirts | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 6, 2008 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Apr 28, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 25, 2008 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 25, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 18, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 18, 2007 | 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. |
| Oct 5, 2007 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Sep 11, 2007 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Sep 11, 2007 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Sep 11, 2007 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 11, 2007 | 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. |
| Jul 11, 2007 | 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. |
| Apr 24, 2007 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Oct 24, 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. |
| Aug 1, 2006 | 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. |
| Jul 12, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jun 16, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| May 24, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| May 2, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 31, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 31, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 16, 2006 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Mar 16, 2006 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Feb 7, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 25, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 27, 2005 | CRML | CORRESPONDENCE MAILED | — |
| Oct 27, 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. |
| Oct 5, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 12, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 12, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 2, 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. |
| Apr 28, 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 28, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 4, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |