USPTO serial 79000716
CHEVALIER LICHINE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 402
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KON, ELISSA GARBER
- Law office
- TTAB
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 CHEVALIER LICHINE?
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
F-33460 CANTENAC, FR
F-33460 CANTENAC, FR
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 033 | Wines with the specified and guaranteed label of origin Margaux | ABANDONED | — |
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 5, 2014 | DENA | NOTIFICATION OF EFFECT OF CANCELLATION OF INTL REG MAILED | — |
| Jul 4, 2014 | DETH | DEATH OF INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION | — |
| Aug 1, 2008 | FINT | FINAL DECISION TRANSACTION PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Jul 3, 2008 | FICS | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE SENT TO IB | — |
| Jul 3, 2008 | FICR | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Oct 26, 2007 | NREP | NEW REPRESENTATIVE AT IB RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 27, 2006 | FINT | FINAL DECISION TRANSACTION PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Jun 19, 2006 | FICS | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE SENT TO IB | — |
| Jun 19, 2006 | FICR | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Jun 12, 2006 | MAB4 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - INTER PARTES DECISION | — |
| Jun 12, 2006 | ABN4 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER INTER PARTES DECISION | — |
| Jun 12, 2006 | OP.T | OPPOSITION TERMINATED NO. 999999 | — |
| Jun 12, 2006 | OP.S | OPPOSITION SUSTAINED NO. 999999 | — |
| Dec 19, 2005 | RFNT | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Dec 19, 2005 | OPNX | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION - PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Nov 4, 2005 | OP.I | OPPOSITION INSTITUTED NO. 999999 | — |
| Nov 4, 2005 | OPPF | OPPOSITION PAPERS RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Nov 4, 2005 | OPNS | OPPOSITION NOTICE (IB REFUSAL) SENT TO IB | — |
| Nov 4, 2005 | OPNC | OPPOSITION NOTICE (IB REFUSAL) CREATED | — |
| Oct 4, 2005 | 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. |
| Sep 14, 2005 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Aug 18, 2005 | OPNX | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION - PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Jul 22, 2005 | OPNS | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION SENT TO IB | — |
| Jul 21, 2005 | OPNR | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Jun 21, 2005 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jun 14, 2005 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2005 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jun 14, 2005 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 8, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 8, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 17, 2005 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Mar 10, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 10, 2005 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 10, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 28, 2005 | 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. |
| Jan 28, 2005 | 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 9, 2004 | RFNT | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Jul 2, 2004 | 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 1, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 24, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |
| Feb 19, 2004 | REPR | SN ASSIGNED FOR SECT 66A APPL FROM IB | — |