USPTO serial 75246159
D-LINE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GILBERT, REBECCA L
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 D-LINE?
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
DEVLIN EBUSINESS ARCHITECTS INC.
TORONTO, ONTARIO, CA
Toronto, Ontario, M5A 1K2, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
LARRY L SARET
LARRY L SARET MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLPSTE 2000TWO PRUDENTIAL PLZ 180 N STETSON AVECHICAGO, IL 60601Goods 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.
- Other trademarks owned by DEVLIN EBUSINESS ARCHITECTS INC.
- Other trademarks owned by Devlin Multimedia Inc.
- Other trademarks in Class 009
- Other trademarks in Class 042
- Similar marks named D-LINE
- Prosecution event MAB2 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 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. |
| Jun 12, 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. |
| Jan 10, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 14, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 14, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 11, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 11, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 5, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 21, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 21, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 1, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 30, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 26, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 26, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 10, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 10, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 18, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 5, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 22, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Mar 18, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 28, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 9, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 2, 2000 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 21, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 21, 1999 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 24, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 2, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 3, 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. |
| Sep 15, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |