USPTO serial 74237655
THE BEAN HOLE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FRONT, MITCHELL
- 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 THE BEAN HOLE?
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
Sudbury, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Michael L. Mau
MICHAEL L MAU MERCHANT, GOULD, SMITH, EDELL, ET ALSTE ONE THOUSANDNORWEST CTRSAINT PAUL, MN 55101-2701Goods and services
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 1999 | 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 28, 1999 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 20, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 27, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 29, 1997 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 28, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 15, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 9, 1997 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 21, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 15, 1996 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 17, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 2, 1995 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 15, 1995 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 16, 1995 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 30, 1995 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 28, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 10, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 7, 1993 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 10, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 16, 1992 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 24, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 12, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |