USPTO serial 73637693
WEST VILLA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FISHER, HANNAH
- 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 WEST VILLA?
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
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
J. GEORG SEKA
J GEORG SEKA TOWNSEND AND TOWNSENDSTEUART ST TWRONE MARKET PLZSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | RESTAURANT SERVICES | 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 6, 1992 | 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 12, 1992 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 16, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 3, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 1, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 18, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 19, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 22, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 31, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 10, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 1, 1989 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Nov 2, 1988 | 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. |
| Sep 22, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 22, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 28, 1988 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 23, 1987 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 24, 1987 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 1987 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |