USPTO serial 75607143
EXTRAVASE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FRENCH, CURTIS W
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 EXTRAVASE?
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, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
NORM D. ST. LANDAU
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLPNORM D ST LANDAU1500 K ST N W STE 1100WASHINGTON, DC 20005-1209Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS, NAMELY, ENZYME-BASED DRUGS FOR THE TREATMENT OF REPERFUSION INJURY FOLLOWING AN ISCHEMIC EVENT (MYOCARDIAL INFARCT OR STROKE), RESTENOSIS FOLLOWING ANGIOPLASTY, AND CHRONIC WOUNDS | 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 18, 2005 | 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. |
| Jul 18, 2005 | 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. |
| Dec 20, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 18, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 11, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 2, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 21, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 21, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 29, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 4, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 14, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 24, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 24, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 27, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 13, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 14, 2001 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 15, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 9, 1999 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 20, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 13, 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. |
| Jun 30, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 22, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 2, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |