USPTO serial 73746621
MAKO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- COLE RICHARD G
- 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 MAKO?
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.
DAVID S. ABRAMS
DAVID S ABRAMS ROYLANCE, ABRAMS BERDO & GOODMANSTE 2041225 CONNECTICUT AVE N WWASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 012 | REMOTELY OPERATED SUBMERSIBLE VEHICLES, SELF-PROPELLED AND TOWABLE SUBMERSIBLE OBSERVATION APPARATUS INCORPORATING CAMERAS AND/OR LIGHTS, SELF-PROPELLED SUBMERSIBLE APPARATUS FOR CLEANING SUBMERGED SURFACES, AND RADIO CONTROLLED SUBMERSIBLE VEHICLES AND APPARATUS | 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 13, 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 31, 1992 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 4, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 5, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 1, 1991 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 18, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 15, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 8, 1990 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 20, 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. |
| Oct 13, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |