USPTO serial 75306539
TIGER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BHANOT, KAPIL KUMAR
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 108 - 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 TIGER?
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
Oakville, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
DANIEL R BERESKIN
DANIEL R BERESKIN BERESKIN & PARRSCOTIA PLZ 40TH FL40 KING ST W BOX 401TORONTO, ON M5H 3Y2Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 028 | golf balls | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10, 2010 | 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. |
| Aug 10, 2010 | 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 12, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 11, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 9, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 9, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 9, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 9, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 6, 2009 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 30, 2009 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 30, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 29, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 23, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 23, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 23, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 23, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 20, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 20, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 13, 2008 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 8, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 13, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 12, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 15, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 14, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 11, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 14, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 14, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 3, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 28, 2007 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 31, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 30, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 9, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 9, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 9, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 8, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 5, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 7, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 17, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 8, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 8, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 7, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 2, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 27, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 18, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 18, 2004 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 14, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 24, 2003 | 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. |
| Oct 17, 2003 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Sep 4, 2003 | 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 10, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 16, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 31, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 16, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 15, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 16, 2001 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 20, 2001 | 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. |
| Jun 21, 2000 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 20, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 20, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 16, 1999 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 9, 1999 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Sep 9, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 11, 1999 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 3, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 2, 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 24, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 23, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |