MAX ALL DAY DEFENSE
Peter Thomas Roth Labs, LLC
| Research |
OneLook
Acronym Finder
|
| Serial Number | 78654534 |
| Mark Drawing Code | 4000: Illustration: Drawing with word(s)/letter(s)/number(s) in Block form |
| Attorney Name | CHRISTINE M. BAKER |
| Attorney Docket Number | 05797-039 |
| Law Office Assigned | L30 |
| Employee Name | SPARACINO, MARK V |
Timeline
| 2005-06-20 | Application Filed |
| 2006-04-11 | Published for Opposition |
| 2007-03-09 | Location: INTENT TO USE SECTION |
| 2009-08-03 | Abandon |
| 2009-08-03 | Status: Dead/Abandoned |
| 2018-07-08 | Transaction Date |
Trademark Applicants & Owners
| Owner: |  Peter Thomas Roth Labs, LLC |
| Entity Statement | LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION |
| Address | 460 Park Avenue, 16th Floor New York NY 10022 |
| Legal Entity Type | |
| Legal Entity State | NY |
Documents
Click the blue "Refresh" button to load certificates, specimines, application, and other documents.
Attorney of Record
Good, Services, and Codes
| International Codes: | 3 |
| U.S. Codes: | 001,004,006,050,051,052 |
| Type Code | Type |
|---|---|
| D10000 | "ALL DAY" |
Trademark Filing History
| Description | Date | Event Coding |
|---|---|---|
| NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM | 2005-06-28 | 1 NWAP I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | 2006-01-10 | 2 DOCK D:Assigned to Examiner |
| NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 2006-01-10 | 3 CNRT R:Renewal |
| NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | 2006-01-11 | 4 CNRT F:First Action |
| TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | 2006-02-08 | 5 TROA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | 2006-02-08 | 6 CRFA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | 2006-02-14 | 7 TEME I:Incoming Correspondence |
| APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | 2006-02-16 | 8 CNSA P: |
| ASSIGNED TO LIE | 2006-02-17 | 9 ALIE A:Allowance for Publication |
| LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | 2006-02-24 | 10 PREV O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | 2006-03-22 | 11 NPUB O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | 2006-04-11 | 12 PUBO A:Allowance for Publication |
| NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | 2006-07-04 | 13 NOAM O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | 2007-01-03 | 14 EEXT I:Incoming Correspondence |
| EXTENSION 1 FILED | 2007-01-03 | 15 EXT1 S: |
| EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | 2007-03-20 | 16 EX1G S: |
| TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | 2007-06-25 | 17 EEXT I:Incoming Correspondence |
| EXTENSION 2 FILED | 2007-06-25 | 18 EXT2 S: |
| EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | 2007-06-25 | 19 EX2G S: |
| TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | 2007-12-12 | 20 EEXT I:Incoming Correspondence |
| EXTENSION 3 FILED | 2007-12-12 | 21 EXT3 S: |
| EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | 2007-12-12 | 22 EX3G S: |
| TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | 2008-06-10 | 23 EEXT I:Incoming Correspondence |
| EXTENSION 4 FILED | 2008-06-10 | 24 EXT4 S: |
| EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | 2008-06-10 | 25 EX4G S: |
| TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | 2008-12-30 | 26 EEXT I:Incoming Correspondence |
| EXTENSION 5 FILED | 2008-12-30 | 27 EXT5 S: |
| EXTENSION 5 GRANTED | 2008-12-30 | 28 EX5G S: |
| ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | 2009-08-03 | 29 ABN6 S: |
| ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | 2009-08-03 | 30 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.
| 