USPTO serial 74553280
CINECARD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SUAREZ, MARIA VICTORIA
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 CINECARD?
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
Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 5M4, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Michael A. Grow
MICHAEL A GROW CHIARA GIULIANI ARENT FOX PLLC1050 CONNECTICUT AVE NWWASHINGTON, DC 20036UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | computer carrier and memory storage cards for use in storing movies and videos in a digitally compressed format and for subsequently displaying the same | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2006 | 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. |
| Oct 23, 2006 | 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. |
| Mar 27, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 27, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 15, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 14, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 1, 2005 | ATRQ | ATTORNEY REVIEW/DECISION ON AMENDMENT REQUIRED | — |
| Sep 1, 2005 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Jul 18, 2005 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 18, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 29, 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. |
| Jun 29, 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. |
| Dec 1, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 30, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 25, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 4, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 3, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 22, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 3, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 9, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 25, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 25, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 12, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 30, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 10, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 9, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 9, 2001 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 7, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 23, 1999 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 17, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 18, 1998 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 5, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 4, 1997 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 6, 1997 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 6, 1997 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 15, 1996 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 26, 1996 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 18, 1995 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 4, 1995 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 2, 1995 | 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. |
| Feb 1, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |