USPTO serial 78790536
ZAPPETITES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RICHARDS, SUSAN
- 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 ZAPPETITES?
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.
Sarah L. Nelsen
Sarah L. Nelsen Hormel Foods Corporation1 Hormel PlaceLaw DepartmentAustin, MN 55912Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | microwavable frozen, refrigerated and shelf-stable entrees consisting primarily of meat and/or poultry and/or cheese and/or vegetables | ACTIVE | — |
| 030 | microwavable frozen, refrigerated and shelf-stable entrees consisting primarily of pasta and noodles and also including vegetables | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 2012 | 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 30, 2012 | 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. |
| Jan 7, 2012 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST MAILED | — |
| Jan 6, 2012 | EX5G | SOU EXTENSION 5 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 23, 2011 | EXT5 | SOU EXTENSION 5 FILED | — |
| Dec 23, 2011 | 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. |
| Jun 15, 2011 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST MAILED | — |
| Jun 13, 2011 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 13, 2011 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Jun 13, 2011 | 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. |
| Jan 6, 2011 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST MAILED | — |
| Jan 5, 2011 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 23, 2010 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Dec 23, 2010 | 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. |
| Jul 3, 2010 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST MAILED | — |
| Jul 2, 2010 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 30, 2010 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jun 30, 2010 | 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. |
| Feb 2, 2010 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 2, 2010 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Dec 28, 2009 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Dec 28, 2009 | 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. |
| Jun 30, 2009 | 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. |
| Apr 7, 2009 | 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. |
| Mar 18, 2009 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Mar 3, 2009 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Feb 27, 2009 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Feb 25, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 25, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 25, 2009 | 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. |
| Feb 11, 2009 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION 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. |
| Feb 10, 2009 | 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. |
| Jan 13, 2009 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Jan 2, 2009 | PBCR | WITHDRAWN FROM PUB - OG REVIEW QUERY | — |
| Dec 22, 2008 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Dec 20, 2008 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Dec 18, 2008 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 18, 2008 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Dec 17, 2008 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 17, 2008 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Dec 12, 2008 | PBCR | WITHDRAWN FROM PUB - OG REVIEW QUERY | — |
| Dec 4, 2008 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Dec 3, 2008 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Oct 29, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 29, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 27, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 31, 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. |
| Jul 31, 2008 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 24, 2008 | 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. |
| Jul 24, 2008 | 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. |
| Jul 8, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 8, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jul 5, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 4, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 3, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 11, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 11, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 11, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 13, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 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. |
| May 9, 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. |
| May 8, 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. |
| May 1, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 18, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |