USPTO serial 73558193
FPS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STINE, DAVID
- 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 FPS?
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.
EDWARD M. PRINCE
EDWARD M PRINCE CUSHMAN, DARBY & CUSHMANNINTH FL1100 NEW YORK AVE N WWASHINGTON, DC 20005-3918Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 012 | TRACTORS, MOTORS FOR TRACTORS AND STRUCTURAL PARTS THEREFOR | ABANDONED | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 1994 | 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. |
| Oct 5, 1993 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 8, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 1, 1992 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 20, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 31, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 1, 1991 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 26, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 24, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 29, 1990 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 5, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 20, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 18, 1989 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 1988 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 7, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 7, 1988 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 29, 1987 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 1987 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 5, 1987 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 13, 1986 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 25, 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. |