Status report
Get it in writing
The official USPTO status record for CLASSIC CHOICES BY FITZ AND FLOYD, serial 75714253, as a dated PDF. One price, one document, delivered in about a minute.
INSTANT DELIVERY
Trademark Status Report
$7.99
The USPTO's own status record for this mark, on one dated page.
- Current status with a plain-English verdict
- Owner, classes, filing basis, and every key date
- The mark as it appears on the federal record
- Every prosecution event, filing to today
- Source-cited with the exact retrieval date
Built from the USPTO's TSDR record. Assignment chain of title and TTAB proceeding files sit in separate USPTO systems and are not included.
Preview
◆ TRADEMARKCHECKER.AITRADEMARK STATUS REPORT
CLASSIC CHOICES BY FITZ AND FLOYDSerial 75714253 · Principal Register
Dead · Refused
Owner: Fitz and Floyd, Inc.
Class 021 -
Filed May 19, 1999
The record shows that “CLASSIC CHOICES BY FITZ AND FLOYD” is a dead mark that was abandoned by Fitz and Floyd, Inc., a Delaware corporation, because the applicant never filed a Statement of Use or an Extension Request after the Notice of Allowance was issued. The mark was registered on the Principal Register for goods in class 021, specifically a wide range of household and kitchen containers made of porcelain, ceramic, glass, earthenware, bone china, and related serving ware such as plates, bowls, cups, mugs, salt and pepper shakers, sugar and creamer, canape plates, butter dishes, serveware, coffee and tea pots, pitchers, urns, drinking glasses, casseroles, bakeware, trivets, napkin rings, candy dishes, jars, ice buckets, champagne buckets, wine coolers, soap dishes, flower pots, vases, acrylic and wooden serving trays, and gift ware including collectible plates, picture frames, mantle clocks, candleholders, and porcelain bells. A similar name would raise the closest concern for use in the same or very similar kitchenware and gift‑ware categories. The record does not give the owner control over every use of the words “Classic Choices” or “Fitz and Floyd” in unrelated fields. The prosecution history shows the mark was approved for publication, published for opposition, allowed, and then abandoned after the applicant failed to file the required use statement. No opposition, cancellation, or court action appears in the supplied history. For someone considering a similar name, the record suggests a meaningful risk of conflict if the new mark is used for comparable kitchen or household goods.
Full event history, owner details, and verdict inside.
The way I'd use it, honestly, is as the thing you attach when a bank, a marketplace, or a co-founder asks "are we clear on the name". It answers in one page.