USPTO serial 75514762
INTEGRAL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SAITO, KIM
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
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 INTEGRAL?
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
74150 RUMILLY, FR
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
LISABETH H COAKLEY
LISABETH H COAKLEY HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE PLCP O BOX 828BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 021 | Non-electric cookware, namely, frying pans, sauteing pan, crepe pans, sauce pans, stew pots, and casseroles | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 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. |
| Apr 21, 2004 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Apr 21, 2004 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Feb 19, 2004 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Sep 30, 2003 | RECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON MAILED | — |
| May 5, 2003 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Dec 23, 2002 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jun 11, 2002 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jan 8, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 13, 2001 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 27, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 24, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 23, 2001 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Nov 30, 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. |
| Nov 17, 2000 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Nov 17, 2000 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Feb 1, 2000 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Feb 5, 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. |
| Jan 21, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 30, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |