USPTO serial 78664518
STONELOCK
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GAN, REBECCAH
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 STONELOCK?
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.
Ralph E. Locher
RALPH E LOCHER LERNER & GREENBERG PAPO BOX 2480HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 019 | pavement tiles; paver tiles; paving blocks; paving stones; paving tiles; tiles of clay, glass, gypsum, ceramic or earthenware for floors; and non-metal flooring tiles, all of the above products used for outdoor patios, pool decks, sidewalks, walkways, driveways and facing walls | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2007 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 22, 2007 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 22, 2007 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Aug 2, 2007 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Apr 10, 2007 | GECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 10, 2007 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Mar 16, 2007 | 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. |
| Mar 16, 2007 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Mar 16, 2007 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Mar 16, 2007 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Sep 18, 2006 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-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. |
| Sep 18, 2006 | 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. |
| Aug 8, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 24, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 24, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 10, 2006 | 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. |
| Feb 10, 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. |
| Jan 26, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 11, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |