USPTO serial 73562807
BAUART GEPRUFT TUV RHEINLAND
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MARSH, SHARON
- 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 BAUART GEPRUFT TUV RHEINLAND?
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.
CAROLE E. DENATALE
CAROLE E DENATALE KANE, DALSIMER, KANE, SULLIVAN & KURUCZ420 LEXINGTON AVENEW YORK, NY 10170UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | CONSULTING AND TESTING SERVICES IN THE FIELDS OF INDUSTRIAL, CONSUMER, AND MEDICAL PRODUCT SAFETY, QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL, ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION, NUCLEAR SAFETY, ROAD TRAFFIC SAFETY, RADIO INTERFERENCE, AND ELECTRICAL AND NOISE DISTURBANCES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 1988 | ABN0 | ABANDONMENT - INCOMPLETE RESPONSE | — |
| Aug 9, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 4, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 8, 1988 | 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. |
| Mar 27, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 16, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 11, 1987 | 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. |
| May 15, 1987 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 18, 1986 | 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. |
| Aug 25, 1986 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 25, 1986 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 3, 1986 | 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. |
| Jan 14, 1986 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 8, 1986 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |