USPTO serial 78831054
THE REGENT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MILLER, DAVID S
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - 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 THE REGENT?
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.
Katherine M. Hoffman
KATHERINE M HOFFMAN LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP600 W BROADWAY STE 2600SAN DIEGO, CA 92101UNITED STATESGoods and services
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2009 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Jun 22, 2009 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Jun 22, 2009 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| May 13, 2009 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| May 13, 2009 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Mar 26, 2009 | GEA1 | NOTIFICATION OF ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 26, 2009 | GECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 26, 2009 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Mar 10, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 10, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 10, 2009 | ERFR | TEAS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 13, 2008 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Nov 13, 2008 | 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. |
| Nov 13, 2008 | 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. |
| Oct 15, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 14, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 14, 2008 | 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 1, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 14, 2008 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF 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 14, 2008 | 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 14, 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. |
| Apr 2, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 27, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 27, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 2, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 2, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 24, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 24, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 21, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 15, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |