USPTO serial 73687053
CARD TIDY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- REIHNER, 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 CARD TIDY?
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
PRAHRAN, VICTORIA, AU
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
SUSAN UPTON DOUGLASS
SUSAN UPTON DOUGLASS WEISS DAWID FROSS ZELNICK & LEHRMAN PC633 THIRD AVENEW YORK, NY 10017-6703UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 020 | PLASTIC SUSPENSION STORAGE CHAINS WITH CLIPS TO WHICH MAY BE HUNG GREETING CARDS AND A VARIETY OF ITEMS | 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 25, 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. |
| Jan 10, 1992 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 15, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 5, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 7, 1991 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 11, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 4, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 7, 1990 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 4, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 18, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 30, 1989 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 27, 1988 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Aug 29, 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. |
| Jul 27, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 10, 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. |
| Feb 26, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 28, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 10, 1987 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |