USPTO serial 75146438
SMARTALERT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SMIGA, HOWARD
- 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 SMARTALERT?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
CHANLEY T. HOWELL
CHANLEY T HOWELL FOLEY & LARDNER3000 K ST NW STE 500WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109UNITED 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.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2004 | 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. |
| Dec 10, 2004 | 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. |
| May 5, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 2, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 14, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 17, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 17, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 8, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 23, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 18, 2000 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 15, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 13, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 8, 1998 | 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 10, 1997 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 31, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |