USPTO serial 75384357
HEMOSOL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- YARD, JOHN S
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 HEMOSOL?
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
Mississauga, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
GARY D. KRUGMAN
GARY D KRUGMAN SUGHRUE MION ZINN MACPEAK & SEAS2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NWWASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | oxygen transporting fluids, namely, blood substitutes for human and veterinary use | 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 5, 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. |
| Aug 5, 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. |
| Jan 8, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 8, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 7, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 5, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 7, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 4, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 2, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 2, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 2, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 4, 2007 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Oct 25, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 24, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 20, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 13, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 8, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 13, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 13, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 17, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 17, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 6, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 6, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 5, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 15, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 15, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 16, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 21, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 21, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 30, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 9, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 17, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 17, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 22, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 9, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 2, 2002 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| May 8, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 1, 2002 | 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 23, 2001 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 30, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 5, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 19, 2000 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| May 19, 2000 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 23, 2000 | 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. |
| Mar 23, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 9, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 7, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 2, 1999 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 9, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 30, 1998 | CNEA | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Jun 24, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |