USPTO serial 74035005
MIRAMAR
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WILSON, ANGELA BISHOP
- 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 MIRAMAR?
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
San Francisco, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Reginald J. Suyat
REGINALD J SUYAT HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & MCAULIFFE333 BUSH STSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104-2878UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 033 | wine | ABANDONED | Nov 16, 1989 |
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 13, 1996 | 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. |
| Feb 23, 1996 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Nov 21, 1995 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Jun 5, 1995 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Apr 7, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 22, 1994 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jan 28, 1994 | 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. |
| Nov 22, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 15, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 12, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 21, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 7, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 14, 1993 | 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. |
| Sep 20, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 20, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 12, 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. |
| Aug 20, 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. |
| Aug 16, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 16, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 23, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |