USPTO serial 78793735
GILBERT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BUCHANAN WILL, NORA
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with GILBERT?
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.
Jennifer C. Debrow; Laura J. Hein
Jennifer C. Debrow; Laura J. Hein Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.AP.O. Box 2186Minneapolis, MN 55402UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | Crackers | ACTIVE | Apr 30, 2006 |
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.
- Other trademarks owned by PF Brands, Inc.
- Other trademarks owned by PEPPERIDGE FARM, INCORPORATED
- Other trademarks owned by PEPPERIDGE FARM, INCORPORATED
- Other trademarks in Class 030
- Similar marks named GILBERT
- Prosecution event MAB2 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2008 | 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. |
| Mar 20, 2008 | 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. |
| Sep 19, 2007 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Aug 21, 2007 | GNR1 | NOTIFICATION OF DISAPPROVAL - AMENDMENT TO USE E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 21, 2007 | GNRU | DISAPPROVAL - AMENDMENT TO USE E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 21, 2007 | 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. |
| Aug 21, 2007 | AAUD | AMENDMENT OF ALLEGED USE DISAPPROVED | — |
| Aug 8, 2007 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Jul 25, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 25, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 25, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 25, 2007 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Jul 25, 2007 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Jul 25, 2007 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Jul 25, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 24, 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. |
| Jul 20, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 20, 2007 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2007 | EAAU | TEAS AMENDMENT OF USE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 28, 2007 | 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, 2007 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 27, 2007 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 6, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 6, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 21, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 23, 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. |
| May 23, 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 23, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 25, 2006 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Jan 24, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |