Status report
Get it in writing
The official USPTO status record for PATTINSON'S JELLY DROPS, serial 79272573, 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
PATTINSON'S JELLY DROPSSerial 79272573 · Principal Register
Dead · Refused
Owner: Jelly Drops Ltd
Class 005 - Pharmaceuticals
Class 029 - Meats & Processed Foods
Class 030 - Staple Foods
Filed Jun 12, 2019
The record shows that “PATTINSON'S JELLY DROPS” is dead – it was abandoned on Jan 19 2021 after the applicant failed to respond to an Office action, and the owner listed is Jelly Drops Ltd of the United Kingdom. The application covered a broad mix of goods in classes 005, 029 and 030, including pharmaceutical preparations for hydration, dietetic foods and supplements, as well as a wide range of foods such as meat, fish, coffee, tea, confectionery, candy, gelatin desserts and related snack items. A similar name would raise the closest record‑based concern if used for any of those pharmaceutical or food‑related products, because the listed goods define the scope of the filing. The record does not give the owner control over every possible use of the words “PATTINSON’S” or “JELLY DROPS” outside those categories. This was a Principal Register filing, not a Supplemental Register entry, and the prosecution history shows a refusal followed by abandonment rather than a supplemental amendment. The latest meaningful event is the abandonment notice on Jan 19 2021; no further maintenance or renewal dates appear, and the history shows no oppositions, cancellations or court actions. I'd treat this as a meaningful concern if you plan to use a similar name for hydration‑related medicines or food products, but the risk is far lower for unrelated 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.