USPTO serial 75114658
ROYAL BANK JET CARD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MICHOS, JOHN E
- 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 ROYAL BANK JET CARD?
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, Province of Quebec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
WILLIAM T. BOLAND, JR.
PETER F WEINBERG GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP1801 CALIFORNIA ST STE 4100DENVER, CO 80202UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 036 | financial services, namely, banking services | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 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 23, 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 19, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 30, 2004 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 30, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 30, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 24, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 19, 2003 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 25, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 22, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 7, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 18, 2000 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Oct 31, 2000 | 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. |
| Aug 17, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 14, 2000 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 16, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 4, 1997 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 5, 1997 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 7, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 16, 1997 | 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. |
| Jan 6, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 2, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |