USPTO serial 75404107
INOVA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DUBOIS, SUSAN L
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 111 - 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 INOVA?
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
Abbotsford, British Columbia, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
ROBERT B HUGHES
ROBERT B HUGHES HUGHES & SCHACHT PS2801 MERIDIAN ST STE 1BELLINGHAM, WA 98225-2412UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | egg products and their derivatives; milk and milk whey products and their derivatives; enzymes for use in food products; enzymes derived from dairy and animal sources | ACTIVE | — |
| 030 | bakery food products; ingredients and additives for baked food products; sauce and ingredients for the same | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 6, 2005 | UNDC | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - COURTESY COPY MAILED | — |
| May 5, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 29, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 20, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 20, 2004 | 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. |
| Dec 20, 2004 | 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. |
| May 7, 2004 | 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 6, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 21, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 13, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 13, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 2, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 23, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 24, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 23, 1999 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 30, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 2, 1999 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 1, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 7, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 8, 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. |
| May 8, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 7, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |