USPTO serial 75421090
GUARDIAN
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- OSBORNE, STANLEY
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 GUARDIAN?
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
Montreal, Quebec H3B 1Y8, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
BARRY I HOLLANDER
BARRY I HOLLANDER HOLLANDER LAW FIRM, PLC10300 EATON PL STE 305FAIRFAX, VA 22030UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Unmanned surveillance aircraft | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2006 | 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. |
| Apr 17, 2006 | 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. |
| Sep 12, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 12, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 29, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 1, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Oct 4, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 20, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 20, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 12, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 15, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 3, 2003 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 18, 2002 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 18, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 30, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 11, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 14, 1999 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 2, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 14, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |