USPTO serial 73619189
INFINITE BANKING CONCEPTS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DEMOS, JOHN C., JR.
- 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 INFINITE BANKING CONCEPTS?
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
BIRMINGHAM, AL
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
ROBERT J. VEAL
ROBERT J VEAL JENNINGS, CARTER, THOMPSON & VEAL1550 BANK FOR SAVINGS BLDGBIRMINGHAM, AL 35203UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 036 | FINANCIAL PLANNING SERVICES | ABANDONED | Feb 13, 1986 |
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 13, 1989 | 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 9, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 30, 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. |
| May 26, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 12, 1988 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Feb 18, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 26, 1987 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 5, 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. |
| Nov 24, 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. |
| Nov 12, 1986 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |