USPTO serial 78732167
VIRTUE KIDS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CARLYLE, SHAUNIA P
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE SECTION
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 VIRTUE KIDS?
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
Naperville, IL
Naperville, IL
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
David Hanneman
5023 Switch Grass LaneNaperville, IL 60564UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 016 | Series of non-religious books to assist parents in training, developing, and maintaining positive characteristics in children primarily between the ages 5 and 12 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 19, 2010 | 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. |
| Apr 19, 2010 | 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. |
| Nov 24, 2009 | EX5G | SOU EXTENSION 5 GRANTED | — |
| Nov 23, 2009 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Nov 23, 2009 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Nov 23, 2009 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 26, 2009 | 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. |
| Oct 26, 2009 | 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. |
| Sep 20, 2009 | EXT5 | SOU EXTENSION 5 FILED | — |
| May 21, 2009 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| May 21, 2009 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| May 21, 2009 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| May 21, 2009 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 20, 2009 | 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. |
| Apr 20, 2009 | 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. |
| Mar 20, 2009 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Jan 15, 2009 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Jan 15, 2009 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Dec 18, 2008 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Dec 18, 2008 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Dec 18, 2008 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 27, 2008 | 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. |
| Oct 27, 2008 | 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. |
| Sep 20, 2008 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Apr 17, 2008 | UNDN | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - NO ACTION TAKEN | — |
| Apr 7, 2008 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Mar 28, 2008 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | 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 28, 2008 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 20, 2008 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Sep 6, 2007 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Sep 6, 2007 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Sep 6, 2007 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Mar 20, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 26, 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. |
| Dec 6, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Nov 8, 2006 | FIXD | ELECTRONIC RECORD REVIEW COMPLETE | — |
| Aug 4, 2006 | ERRR | ON HOLD - ELECTRONIC RECORD REVIEW REQUIRED | — |
| Jul 18, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jul 14, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 30, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jun 13, 2006 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 12, 2006 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 12, 2006 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 10, 2006 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Jun 10, 2006 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| May 19, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 9, 2006 | 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. |
| May 8, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 8, 2006 | 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. |
| Apr 15, 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. |
| Apr 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. |
| Apr 15, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 18, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |