USPTO serial 78919249
RAW EXPOSURE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ORNDORFF, LINDA
- 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 RAW EXPOSURE?
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
Venice, CA
Venice, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Maurice B. Pilosof
MAURICE B PILOSOFPO BOX 691937WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA 90069-8937UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 016 | Paper and paper goods, namely paper napkins, paper mats; printed publications, namely series of cookbooks, printed recipe cards, newsletters in the field of food and cooking, periodical publications on the subject of food and cooking, syndicated columns on the subject of food and cooking | 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.
- Other trademarks owned by Gordon, Gisselle Erica Eve
- Other trademarks owned by Gordon, Gisselle Erica Eve
- Other trademarks owned by Haugen, Sarah
- Other trademarks owned by Haugen, Sarah
- Other trademarks in Class 016
- Similar marks named RAW EXPOSURE
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 9, 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. |
| Jul 9, 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. |
| Nov 6, 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. |
| Aug 14, 2007 | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2007 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jul 7, 2007 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jul 7, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 4, 2007 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jun 1, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 31, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 31, 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. |
| Dec 1, 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. |
| Dec 1, 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. |
| Dec 1, 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. |
| Dec 1, 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. |
| Nov 30, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 6, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |