BIRDS EYE FRESH
Linden Oaks Corporation
| Research |
OneLook
Acronym Finder
|
| Serial Number | 75923163 |
| Mark Drawing Code | 1000: Typeset: Word(s)/letter(s)/number(s) |
| Attorney Name | Stephen B. Salai |
| Attorney Docket Number | 86004.000349 |
| Law Office Assigned | L50 |
| Employee Name | SPILS, CAROL A |
Timeline
| 2000-02-18 | Application Filed |
| 2001-10-16 | Published for Opposition |
| 2004-09-23 | Location: DIVISIONAL UNIT |
| 2005-01-09 | Abandon |
| 2005-01-09 | Status: Dead/Abandoned |
| 2018-07-08 | Transaction Date |
Trademark Applicants & Owners
| Owner: |  Linden Oaks Corporation |
| Address | Suite 200 103 Foulk Rd. Wilmington DE 19803 |
| Legal Entity Type | Corporation |
| Legal Entity State | DE |
Documents
Click the blue "Refresh" button to load certificates, specimines, application, and other documents.
Attorney of Record
Good, Services, and Codes
| International Codes: | 29 |
| U.S. Codes: | 046 |
| Type Code | Type |
|---|---|
| D10000 | "FRESH" |
Trademark Filing History
| Description | Date | Event Coding |
|---|---|---|
| ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | 2000-07-16 | 1 DOCK D:Assigned to Examiner |
| NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | 2000-08-02 | 2 CNRT F:First Action |
| CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | 2000-09-14 | 3 CRFA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | 2000-12-02 | 4 DOCK D:Assigned to Examiner |
| ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | 2001-01-17 | 5 DOCK D:Assigned to Examiner |
| ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | 2001-01-17 | 6 DOCK D:Assigned to Examiner |
| APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | 2001-01-18 | 7 CNSA P: |
| NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | 2001-09-26 | 8 NPUB O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | 2001-10-16 | 9 PUBO A:Allowance for Publication |
| NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | 2002-01-08 | 10 NOAM O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | 2002-07-08 | 11 EEXT I:Incoming Correspondence |
| EXTENSION 1 FILED | 2002-07-08 | 12 EXT1 S: |
| EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | 2002-07-16 | 13 EX1G S: |
| TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | 2003-01-08 | 14 EEXT I:Incoming Correspondence |
| TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | 2003-02-20 | 15 TCCA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| EXTENSION 2 FILED | 2003-01-08 | 16 EXT2 S: |
| EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | 2003-03-11 | 17 EX2G S: |
| TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | 2003-06-27 | 18 EEXT I:Incoming Correspondence |
| EXTENSION 3 FILED | 2003-06-27 | 19 EXT3 S: |
| EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | 2003-07-09 | 20 EX3G S: |
| TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | 2003-12-03 | 21 EEXT I:Incoming Correspondence |
| EXTENSION 4 FILED | 2003-12-03 | 22 EXT4 S: |
| EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | 2003-12-10 | 23 EX4G S: |
| PAPER RECEIVED | 2004-01-05 | 24 MAIL I:Incoming Correspondence |
| DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | 2004-01-05 | 25 DRRR I:Incoming Correspondence |
| DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | 2004-02-11 | 26 DPCC D:Assigned to Examiner |
| TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | 2004-07-07 | 27 EEXT I:Incoming Correspondence |
| CASE FILE IN TICRS | 2004-07-14 | 28 CFIT O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| EXTENSION 5 FILED | 2004-07-07 | 29 EXT5 S: |
| EXTENSION 5 GRANTED | 2004-07-30 | 30 EX5G S: |
| ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | 2005-05-13 | 31 ABN6 S: |
| ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | 2005-05-13 | 32 MAB6 O:Outgoing Correspondence |
Similar Marks
uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.
While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.
| 