USPTO serial 79046766
DE CECCO DAL 1886 PASSATA DI POMODORO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 402
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CORWIN, CHARLOTTE K
- 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 DE CECCO DAL 1886 PASSATA DI POMODORO?
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | Preserved, dried and cooked vegetables; tomato concentrates, tomato extracts, tomato juice for cooking, tomato preserve, tomato puree; peeled tomatoes | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 31, 2018 | DENA | NOTIFICATION OF EFFECT OF CANCELLATION OF INTL REG MAILED | — |
| Mar 30, 2018 | DETH | DEATH OF INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION | — |
| Sep 28, 2009 | FINT | FINAL DECISION TRANSACTION PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Aug 5, 2009 | FICS | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE SENT TO IB | — |
| Aug 5, 2009 | FICR | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Jun 4, 2009 | OPNX | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION - PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| May 21, 2009 | OPNS | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION SENT TO IB | — |
| May 21, 2009 | OPNR | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Nov 13, 2008 | ADCH | CHANGE OF NAME/ADDRESS REC'D FROM IB | — |
| Aug 5, 2008 | 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. |
| Aug 5, 2008 | 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. |
| Feb 1, 2008 | RFNT | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Jan 8, 2008 | RFCS | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED - REFUSAL SENT TO IB | — |
| Jan 8, 2008 | RFRR | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY MPU | — |
| Jan 8, 2008 | RFCR | NON-FINAL ACTION (IB REFUSAL) PREPARED FOR REVIEW | — |
| Jan 7, 2008 | 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 21, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 21, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |
| Dec 20, 2007 | REPR | SN ASSIGNED FOR SECT 66A APPL FROM IB | — |