USPTO serial 74410463
R12
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ABRAMS, JACQUELINE WILLETTE
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
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 R12?
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.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Islington, Ontario M9B 1R1, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
BEN D. TOBOR
BEN D TOBOR BRACEWELL & PATTERSON, LLPP O BOX 61389HOUSTON, TX 77208-1389UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | chemical processing plants for the production of chlorine dioxide, namely processing units for the production of chlorine dioxide comprised primarily of generators and reactors; and a reactor unit for processing byproducts produced from chlorine dioxide production | ACTIVE | — |
| 035 | management of plants and apparatus for the production of chlorine dioxide solution for others; consulting services regarding the management of chlorine dioxide and consulting services in connection with procuring plants and apparatus for the production of chlorine dioxide solution to the specification of others | ACTIVE | — |
| 037 | custom construction and installation of plants and apparatus in connection with the production of chlorine dioxide solution | ACTIVE | — |
| 042 | custom designing of plants and apparatus for the production of chlorine dioxide solution for others | 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.
- Other trademarks owned by STERLING PULP CHEMICALS, LTD.
- Other trademarks in Class 011
- Other trademarks in Class 035
- Other trademarks in Class 037
- Other trademarks in Class 042
- Similar marks named R12
- Prosecution event MAB2 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2007 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | 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. |
| Jul 3, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 4, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 2, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 30, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 29, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 26, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 17, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 17, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 15, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 14, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 10, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 31, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 28, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 27, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 27, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 24, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 24, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 24, 2005 | ZZZY | PREVIOUS ACTION COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Mar 24, 2005 | ZZZY | PREVIOUS ACTION COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Mar 24, 2005 | ZZZY | PREVIOUS ACTION COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Feb 8, 2005 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | 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 31, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 10, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 26, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 30, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 14, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 14, 2004 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 1, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 18, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 4, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 30, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Nov 27, 2001 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 14, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 2, 2001 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 18, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 12, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 10, 1999 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 26, 1999 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 5, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 5, 1999 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 8, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 6, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 28, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 7, 1998 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 22, 1997 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 17, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 20, 1996 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 19, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 12, 1996 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 18, 1996 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 20, 1995 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 28, 1995 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 31, 1995 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 30, 1994 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 23, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 23, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 22, 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. |
| Oct 21, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 14, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 14, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |