NASH
Consolidated IP Company LLC
| Research |
OneLook
Acronym Finder
|
| Serial Number | 85778628 |
| Mark Drawing Code | 4000: Illustration: Drawing with word(s)/letter(s)/number(s) in Block form |
| Attorney Name | Robert B. Burlingame |
| Attorney Docket Number | 057273-04190 |
| Law Office Assigned | M10 |
| Employee Name | CASTRO, GIANCARLO |
Timeline
| 2012-11-14 | Application Filed |
| 2014-05-12 | Abandon |
| 2014-05-30 | Location: TMO LAW OFFICE 110 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED |
| 2014-05-30 | Status: Dead/Abandoned |
| 2018-07-08 | Transaction Date |
Trademark Applicants & Owners
| Owner: |  Consolidated IP Company LLC |
| Address | 3280 Peachtree Road, NW, Suite 2300 Atlanta DE 30305 |
| Legal Entity Type | Limited Liability Company |
| 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: | 16 |
| U.S. Codes: | 002,005,022,023,029,037,038,050 |
| International Codes: | 38 |
| U.S. Codes: | 100,101,104 |
| International Codes: | 41 |
| U.S. Codes: | 100,101,107 |
| Type Code | Type |
|---|---|
| GS0161 | Printed publications, namely, entertainment magazines |
Trademark Filing History
| Description | Date | Event Coding |
|---|---|---|
| NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED IN TRAM | 2012-11-20 | 1 NWOS I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | 2012-12-16 | 2 DOCK D:Assigned to Examiner |
| NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 2012-12-19 | 3 CNRT R:Renewal |
| NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED | 2012-12-19 | 4 GNRT F:First Action |
| NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED | 2012-12-19 | 5 GNRN O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | 2013-06-19 | 6 TROA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | 2013-06-19 | 7 CRFA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | 2013-06-20 | 8 TEME I:Incoming Correspondence |
| FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 2013-07-10 | 9 CNFR R:Renewal |
| FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED | 2013-07-10 | 10 GNFR O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | 2013-07-10 | 11 GNFN O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| TEAS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION RECEIVED | 2014-01-10 | 12 ERFR I:Incoming Correspondence |
| CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | 2014-01-10 | 13 CRFA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | 2014-01-11 | 14 TEME I:Incoming Correspondence |
| JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | 2014-01-14 | 15 JURT T:TTAB Proceeding |
| EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | 2014-01-14 | 16 EXPI T:TTAB Proceeding |
| ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | 2014-01-15 | 17 ASCK I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | 2014-03-14 | 18 CNCF S: |
| ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | 2014-03-14 | 19 GECD O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| NOTIFICATION OF ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | 2014-03-14 | 20 GEA1 O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | 2014-05-28 | 21 EXPT T:TTAB Proceeding |
| ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED | 2014-05-30 | 22 ABN1 O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - EXPRESS ABANDONMENT | 2014-05-30 | 23 MAB1 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.
| 