USPTO serial 75566590
SQL IMPACT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LAWRENCE, SUSAN KASTRINER
- 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 SQL IMPACT?
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.
JEFFREY L, VAN HOOSEAR
JEFFREY L VAN HOOSEAR KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP620 NEWPORT CTR DR16TH FLNEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | COMPUTER SOFTWARE, NAMELY, IMPACT ANALYSIS SOLUTION THAT AUTOMATICALLY FINDS AND DOCUMENTS INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN APPLICATIONS AND DATABASES SO AS TO REVEAL THE IMPACT A DATABASE CHANGE WILL HAVE PRIOR TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION | 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 14, 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. |
| Aug 28, 2003 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-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. |
| Jun 23, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 22, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 22, 2003 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 22, 2003 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Nov 12, 2002 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 8, 2002 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 23, 2002 | 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. |
| Oct 11, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 10, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 12, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 29, 1999 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| May 12, 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. |
| Apr 19, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 15, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |