USPTO serial 73834373
METCALFE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RICARDO, RANDY
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE UNIT
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 METCALFE?
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
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, AU
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
FRANCIS J. DUFFIN, ETAL
FRANCIS J DUFFIN, ET AL DARBY & DARBY, PC805 THIRD AVENEW YORK, NY 10022UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 012 | FABRICATED PLASTICS ACCESSORIES FOR VEHICLES; NAMELY, COVERS OR SHIELDS FOR HEADLAMPS, STONE DEFLECTORS, BONNET GUARS, INSECT DEFLECTORS, WINDSCREEN DEFLECTORS, WEATHER SHIELDS, DOOR WEATHER SHIELDS, PLASTIC COVERS FOR NUMBER PLATE AND LICENSE PLATES, COMBINED BONNET AND HEADLIGHT GUARDS, ALL MADE FROM SHEET PLASTIC AND FABRICATED PLASTICS MATERIALS | ACTIVE | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 2003 | 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. |
| Nov 25, 1992 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Aug 27, 1992 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 27, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 1992 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 7, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 28, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 28, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 28, 1990 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 19, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 10, 1990 | 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. |
| Jan 16, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 9, 1990 | 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. |
| Dec 14, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |