USPTO serial 78926976
KWV - LA CONCORDE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- YOUNG, CARRIE SKYE
- Law office
- LAW OFFICE 117 - 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 KWV - LA CONCORDE?
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.
Lawrence E. Apolzon
LAWRENCE E APOLZON FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU PC866 UNITED NATIONS PLZNEW YORK, NY 10017-1822UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 033 | Wines | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 24, 2011 | 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. |
| May 23, 2011 | 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. |
| Oct 13, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 12, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 1, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 1, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 31, 2010 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 23, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 23, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 21, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 20, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 9, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 9, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 8, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 26, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 25, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 17, 2009 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 28, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 24, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 3, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 3, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 30, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 18, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 17, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 11, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 10, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 8, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 8, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 8, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 5, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 24, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 23, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 18, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 12, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 11, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 30, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 30, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 30, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 23, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 11, 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. |
| Dec 10, 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 10, 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 8, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 17, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |