USPTO serial 75558931
BAJA-RITO FRESH WRAP GRILL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- PRICE, WANDA
- 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 BAJA-RITO FRESH WRAP GRILL?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Christopher A. McElgunn
CHRISTOPHER A MCELGUNN KLENDA MITCHELL AUSTERMAN & ZUERCHER LLC1600 EPIC CTR 301 N MAINWICHITA, KS 67202-4888UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | RESTAURANT SERVICES | ACTIVE | Dec 24, 1998 |
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, 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. |
| Sep 5, 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. |
| Feb 6, 2006 | 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. |
| Feb 4, 2006 | 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. |
| May 16, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 14, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 23, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 12, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 1, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 29, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 29, 1999 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Jun 1, 1999 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| May 21, 1999 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 5, 1999 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Apr 5, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 18, 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. |
| Feb 1, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 27, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |