USPTO serial 73728232
MULT-A-SERV
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BELENKER, ESTHER
- 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 MULT-A-SERV?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
RAYMOND J. LILLIE
RAYMOND J LILLIE CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN & GILFILLAN6 BECKER FARM RDROSELAND, NJ 07068UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | SURFACE-MOUNTED WIRE AND CABLE DELIVERY SYSTEMS, NAMELY METAL RACEWAYS FOR ELECTRICAL WIRES AND CABLES, AND PARTS THEREFOR, NAMELY NONMETALLIC CLOSURE STRIPS AND NONMETALLIC ELETRICAL OUTLET FACE PLATES AND TELEPHONE LINE CONNECTOR FACE PLATES | ABANDONED | Aug 3, 1987 |
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 16, 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. |
| Aug 16, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 12, 1991 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Feb 12, 1991 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Oct 15, 1990 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Aug 30, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 21, 1990 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Dec 4, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 6, 1989 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 6, 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. |
| Aug 8, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |