USPTO serial 75331658
LAXELLE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DONINGER, CHRISTOPHER G
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - SENIOR ATTORNEY
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 LAXELLE?
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, V6C 3H1, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
FRED W HATHAWAY
FRED W HATHAWAY BURNS DOANE SWECKER & MATHIS LLPP O BOX 1404ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | pharmaceutical preparations, namely, laxatives | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 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. |
| Mar 7, 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. |
| Aug 30, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Aug 3, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 3, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 13, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 4, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 4, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 6, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 8, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 19, 2001 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 29, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 2, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 17, 2000 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 8, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 22, 1999 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 16, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 23, 1998 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 16, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 5, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 5, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |