USPTO serial 75302610
INFLAZYME
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DOMBROW, COLLEEN M
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 INFLAZYME?
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
Vancouver, British Columbia, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
LAWRENCE A MAXHAM
LAWRENCE A MAXHAM THE MAXHAM FIRM9330 SCRANTON RD STE 350SAN DIEGO, CA 92121UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | pharmaceuticals for treatment of inflammatory diseases; medical diagnostic kits comprised of glass vials, diagnostic reagents and instructions for use in diagnosis of tuberculosis | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 2008 | 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. |
| Feb 12, 2008 | 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. |
| Jul 17, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 17, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 17, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 11, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 11, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 11, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 11, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 11, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 5, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 18, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 7, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 7, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 9, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 7, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 7, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 7, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 18, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 18, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 2, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 1, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 1, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 30, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 30, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 12, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 12, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 14, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 24, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Aug 14, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 14, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 30, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 13, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 17, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 17, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 21, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 2, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 6, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 12, 2001 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 22, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 17, 2000 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 10, 1999 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 2, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 27, 1999 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 11, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 4, 1998 | CNEA | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Jul 9, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 9, 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. |
| Jan 8, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |