USPTO serial 78692676
SYMMETRY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- JUN, WON KYUNG WENDY
- 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 SYMMETRY?
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.
Brian G. Gilpin
BRIAN G GILPIN GODFREY & KAHN SC780 N WATER ST STE 1500MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-3590UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 020 | Window coverings, namely cellular shades, pleated shades, roman shades, woven shades,grass shades, roller shades, soft fabric shades, Y-pleat shades, double shades, and soft fabric vertical blinds; and rails for supporting window coverings, namely bracket rails, head rails, intermediate rails, and bottom rails | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2007 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 14, 2007 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 14, 2007 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jun 18, 2007 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Jan 10, 2007 | GNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 10, 2007 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT - COMPLETED | — |
| Nov 16, 2006 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Sep 18, 2006 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Sep 18, 2006 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jun 8, 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. |
| Jun 8, 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. |
| May 16, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 27, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 27, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 18, 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. |
| Nov 18, 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. |
| Sep 22, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 22, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |