USPTO serial 79023494
ROUGE BAISER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 402
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BROWNE, DAYNA
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 104 - 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 ROUGE BAISER?
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
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | Soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices | SECTION 70 - CANCELLED | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 17, 2016 | DENA | NOTIFICATION OF EFFECT OF CANCELLATION OF INTL REG MAILED | — |
| Sep 16, 2016 | DETH | DEATH OF INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION | — |
| Apr 2, 2015 | ADCH | CHANGE OF NAME/ADDRESS REC'D FROM IB | — |
| Mar 26, 2015 | CHLD | CHANGE OF OWNER RECEIVED FROM IB | — |
| Apr 24, 2008 | FINT | FINAL DECISION TRANSACTION PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Apr 10, 2008 | NREP | NEW REPRESENTATIVE AT IB RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 2, 2008 | FICS | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE SENT TO IB | — |
| Apr 2, 2008 | FICR | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Nov 30, 2007 | OPNX | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION - PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Nov 15, 2007 | OPNS | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION SENT TO IB | — |
| Nov 15, 2007 | OPNR | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Apr 3, 2007 | 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. |
| Apr 2, 2007 | 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 5, 2006 | RFNT | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Sep 28, 2006 | CHLD | CHANGE OF OWNER RECEIVED FROM IB | — |
| Aug 28, 2006 | RFCS | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED - REFUSAL SENT TO IB | — |
| Aug 28, 2006 | RFRR | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY MPU | — |
| Aug 24, 2006 | RFCR | NON-FINAL ACTION (IB REFUSAL) PREPARED FOR REVIEW | — |
| Aug 23, 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. |
| Aug 16, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 16, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |
| Jun 15, 2006 | REPR | SN ASSIGNED FOR SECT 66A APPL FROM IB | — |