USPTO serial 85101155
VP
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HARDY LUDLOW, TARAH KIM
- Law office
- DIVISIONAL UNIT
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 VP?
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
Old Saybrook, CT
Old Saybrook, CT
Hollis, NH
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Thomas P. Manson
Thomas P. Manson Cook Little Rosenblatt & Manson, PLLC1000 Elm Street, 20th FloorMANCHESTER, NH 03101UNITED STATESGoods 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.
- Other trademarks owned by PVL Brand, LLC
- Other trademarks owned by PVL Brand, LLC
- Other trademarks owned by PVL BRAND INC
- Other trademarks in Class 009
- Other trademarks in Class 018
- Similar marks named VP
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 9, 2012 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Jul 9, 2012 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Dec 14, 2011 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Dec 9, 2011 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 8, 2011 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 8, 2011 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Dec 6, 2011 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Dec 5, 2011 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Dec 5, 2011 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 5, 2011 | ERTD | TEAS REQUEST TO DIVIDE RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 5, 2011 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Dec 1, 2011 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Dec 1, 2011 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 8, 2011 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Jun 7, 2011 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Apr 12, 2011 | 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. |
| Mar 23, 2011 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Mar 7, 2011 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Mar 4, 2011 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Mar 4, 2011 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Mar 4, 2011 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 4, 2011 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 4, 2011 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Feb 18, 2011 | PBCR | WITHDRAWN FROM PUB - OG REVIEW QUERY | — |
| Feb 4, 2011 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Feb 4, 2011 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Feb 3, 2011 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 3, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 28, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 18, 2011 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 23, 2010 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Nov 23, 2010 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Nov 20, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 11, 2010 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Aug 10, 2010 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Aug 9, 2010 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |