USPTO serial 75464780
SUNDANCE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STIGLITZ, SUSAN R
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 109 - 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 SUNDANCE?
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
Fort Worth, TX
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
KRISTIN K JORDAN
KRISTIN K JORDAN LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL2200 ROSS AVE STE 2200DALLAS, TX 75201-6776UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 041 | PROVIDING FACILITIES FOR RECREATION, ENTERTAINMENT AND CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL EXHIBITS, NAMELY, FOR MUSICAL, DANCE AND LIVE DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES, MUSEUMS AND PRESERVED HISTORICAL BUILDINGS, GROUNDS AND FACILITIES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 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. |
| Nov 12, 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. |
| Sep 29, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 16, 2008 | 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. |
| Apr 16, 2008 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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. |
| Feb 29, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 29, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 1, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 1, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 6, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 19, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 4, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 2, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 15, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 28, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 12, 2001 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| May 12, 2001 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Oct 16, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 16, 2000 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 14, 2000 | 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. |
| Dec 3, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 12, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 28, 1999 | 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. |
| Mar 22, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 22, 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. |
| Sep 11, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |