USPTO serial 87600014
KÜL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 774
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BROWN, BARBARA TROFFKIN
- Law office
- PUBLICATION AND ISSUE SECTION
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 KÜL?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
EDWARD L. BISHOP
EDWARD L. BISHOP BISHOP DIEHL & LEE, LTD.1475 EAST WOODFIELD ROADSUITE 800SCHAUMBURG, IL 60173Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | Powered water filtration systems comprised of a water filtering apparatus and a water dispenser for filtering and dispensing hot water, cold water, ambient water, and sparkling water, but not water filtration systems as parts of food refrigeration units; water filters for use in machines for dispensing hot water, cold water, ambient water, and sparkling water | ACTIVE | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2024 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 19, 2021 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 3, 2020 | OP.I | OPPOSITION INSTITUTED NO. 999999 | — |
| Apr 3, 2020 | OPPF | OPPOSITION PAPERS RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Mar 31, 2020 | NPUB | OFFICIAL GAZETTE PUBLICATION CONFIRMATION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 31, 2020 | 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 11, 2020 | NONP | NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF PUBLICATION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 2020 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Feb 26, 2020 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 26, 2020 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 25, 2020 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Feb 25, 2020 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Feb 18, 2020 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Feb 18, 2020 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Jan 28, 2020 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 9, 2020 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 15, 2019 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 11, 2019 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 11, 2019 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 11, 2019 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 28, 2019 | ERFR | TEAS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 28, 2019 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jan 28, 2019 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jan 28, 2019 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jan 28, 2019 | ERTD | TEAS REQUEST TO DIVIDE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 27, 2018 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Jul 27, 2018 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Jul 27, 2018 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Jul 5, 2018 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 5, 2018 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 28, 2018 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 14, 2018 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | 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 15, 2017 | 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 15, 2017 | 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 15, 2017 | 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 12, 2017 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 13, 2017 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |