USPTO serial 78630769
GOOD DESIGN
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- YARD, JOHN S
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 GOOD DESIGN?
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.
Charles T. Riggs Jr.
CHARLES T RIGGS JR PATULA & ASSOCIATES PC116 S MICHIGAN AVE FL 14CHICAGO, IL 60603-6005UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 041 | educational services; namely, providing incentives to product designers to demonstrate excellence in the field of design through the issuance of awards; and conducting entertainment exhibitions in the nature of design competitions | ACTIVE | Oct 1, 1991 |
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 5, 2008 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Aug 3, 2008 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Aug 3, 2008 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jun 16, 2008 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Feb 29, 2008 | RECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON MAILED | — |
| Feb 29, 2008 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Dec 19, 2007 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Dec 19, 2007 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Dec 17, 2007 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jun 15, 2007 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL 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. |
| Jun 14, 2007 | 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. |
| May 18, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 18, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 18, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 27, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 16, 2006 | 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 15, 2006 | 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. |
| Oct 25, 2006 | PGOA | PETITION GRANTED - REMAIL OFFICE ACTION | — |
| Oct 13, 2006 | APET | ASSIGNED TO PETITION STAFF | — |
| Sep 18, 2006 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 18, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 13, 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. |
| Jul 13, 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. |
| Dec 15, 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. |
| Dec 14, 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. |
| Dec 11, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 24, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |