USPTO serial 85696667
INCREDIBLE CURLS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ORNDORFF, LINDA
- Law office
- PETITIONS OFFICE
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 INCREDIBLE CURLS?
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
South Orange, NJ
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Luretha M. Stribling
LURETHA M. STRIBLING LURETHA M. STRIBLING LLC133 WESTFIELD AVECLARK, NJ 07066-2429UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | Hair care creams; Hair care lotions; Hair care preparations; Hair dressings for women; Hair products, namely, thickening control creams | ACTIVE | Feb 12, 2013 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2013 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Dec 10, 2013 | APET | ASSIGNED TO PETITION STAFF | — |
| Nov 21, 2013 | TPDD | TEAS DUE DILIGENCE PETITION RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 12, 2013 | 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. |
| Jul 12, 2013 | 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 16, 2013 | AAUA | NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDMENT TO ALLEGE USE E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 15, 2013 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Mar 13, 2013 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Mar 13, 2013 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Mar 2, 2013 | EAAU | TEAS AMENDMENT OF USE RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 4, 2012 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Dec 4, 2012 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Dec 4, 2012 | 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 3, 2012 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 14, 2012 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Aug 9, 2012 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |