USPTO serial 73542619
TOURING PRO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ZAK, HENRY
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with TOURING PRO?
If you own this trademark, we can monitor new filings and help with USPTO deadlines. If you do not, we can file a new U.S. application.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
DONALD R. BAHR
DONALD R BAHL SPALDING & EVENFLO COMPANIES INC5750-A N HOOVER BLVDP O BOX 30101TAMPA, FL 33630Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 028 | GOLF CLUBS AND GOLF BALLS | ABANDONED | May 5, 1970 |
Related trademarks
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 1993 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Feb 10, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 23, 1992 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| May 8, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 16, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 16, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 16, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 20, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 20, 1989 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 6, 1987 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 9, 1986 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 15, 1986 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 8, 1986 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 21, 1986 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 30, 1986 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 21, 1986 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 28, 1985 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Jul 30, 1985 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |