USPTO serial 73637950
GRO PRO REUSABLE COVERS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FICKES, JERI J
- 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 GRO PRO REUSABLE COVERS?
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
HINSPERGERS POLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO, CA
Other trademarks owned by HINSPERGERS POLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
RUPERT J. BRADY
RUPERT J BRADY BRADY, O'BOYLE & GATES920 CHEVY CHASE BLDG5530 WISCONSIN AVECHEVY CHASE, MD 20815Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 022 | GRASS PROTECTION COVERS, AND COVERS TO PROMOTE GRASS RESTORATION AND SEED GERMINATION AND GROWTH; AND FLEXIBLE SEMI-TRANSPARENT AND POROUS GROUND COVERS TO PROTECT GRASS DURING COLD AND WINTER MONTHS AND TO PROMOTE GRASS AND ROOT RESTORATION AND SEED GERMINATION AND GROWTH | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 15, 1991 | 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. |
| Jul 31, 1990 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 27, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 16, 1989 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Feb 2, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 29, 1988 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 28, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 21, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 14, 1987 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 21, 1987 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 11, 1987 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |