USPTO serial 74248194
DOUBLE EXPOSURE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STINE, DAVID
- 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 DOUBLE EXPOSURE?
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
Concord, Ontario L4K 1Z5, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
John S. Hale
JOHN S HALE GIPPLE & HALE6667-B OLD DOMINION DRMCLEAN, VA 22101UNITED STATESGoods 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.
- Other trademarks owned by ROSEDALE WALLCOVERINGS INC.
- Other trademarks in Class 019
- Other trademarks in Class 020
- Other trademarks in Class 024
- Other trademarks in Class 027
- Similar marks named DOUBLE EXPOSURE
- Prosecution event ABN2 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 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. |
| Sep 12, 1995 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 5, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 24, 1995 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 5, 1995 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 13, 1995 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 19, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 8, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 1, 1994 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 31, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 7, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 7, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 23, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 2, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 18, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 11, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 6, 1992 | 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. |
| Apr 22, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |