USPTO serial 74514296
NEUTRALASE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CASE, LEIGH CAROLINE
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 NEUTRALASE?
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
Montreal, Quebec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
NORM D. ST. LANDAU
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATHNORM D ST LANDAU1500 K ST NW STE 1100WASHINGTON, DC 20005-1205Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | injectable drug for heparin neutralization | 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 20, 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. |
| May 20, 2005 | 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. |
| Oct 22, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 21, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 9, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Apr 9, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 21, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 7, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 7, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 9, 2003 | 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. |
| Nov 8, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 18, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 18, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 29, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 21, 2001 | 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. |
| Jul 12, 1999 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 13, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 13, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 21, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 20, 1998 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 22, 1996 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 7, 1995 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 16, 1994 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 13, 1994 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |