USPTO serial 73576093
SLIK
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SHALLANT, 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 SLIK?
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
RICHARD HILL, ONTARIO, CA
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | HAIR CARE PRODUCTS AND PREPARATIONS, INCLUDING STYLING GELS, STYLING MOUSSE, SHAMPOO, HAIR SPRAY, CONDITIONER AND HAIR COLOURING AND IS USING THE SAID MARK FOR HAIR CARE PRODUCTS AND PREPARATIONS, NAMELY, STYLING GELS, STYLING MOUSSE, SHAMPOO, HAIR SPRAY AND CONDITIONER | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 1990 | 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. |
| Apr 13, 1990 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 16, 1988 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 13, 1988 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 27, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 20, 1988 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 2, 1988 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Feb 18, 1988 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 2, 1987 | 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. |
| Mar 17, 1987 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 4, 1986 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 29, 1986 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 19, 1986 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 19, 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. |
| Mar 11, 1986 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 6, 1986 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |