USPTO serial 79020139
COSMETIC VALLEY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 402
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LOTT, MAUREEN DALL
- Law office
- LAW OFFICE 117 - 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 COSMETIC VALLEY?
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
Goods 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2026 | DETH | DEATH OF INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION | — |
| Aug 6, 2015 | RNWL | INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION RENEWED | — |
| Apr 29, 2011 | ADCH | CHANGE OF NAME/ADDRESS REC'D FROM IB | — |
| Oct 26, 2007 | FINT | FINAL DECISION TRANSACTION PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Oct 3, 2007 | FICS | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE SENT TO IB | — |
| Oct 3, 2007 | FICR | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Aug 10, 2007 | OPNX | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION - PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Jul 26, 2007 | OPNS | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION SENT TO IB | — |
| Jul 26, 2007 | OPNR | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Sep 29, 2006 | 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. |
| Sep 28, 2006 | 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. |
| Mar 17, 2006 | RFNT | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Feb 28, 2006 | RFCS | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED - REFUSAL SENT TO IB | — |
| Feb 28, 2006 | RFRR | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY MPU | — |
| Feb 26, 2006 | RFCR | NON-FINAL ACTION (IB REFUSAL) PREPARED FOR REVIEW | — |
| Feb 25, 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. |
| Feb 24, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 24, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |
| Feb 23, 2006 | REPR | SN ASSIGNED FOR SECT 66A APPL FROM IB | — |