USPTO serial 75613008
DYNAMIC PROTECTION PARTNERS FUND
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STRASER, RICHARD
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 DYNAMIC PROTECTION PARTNERS FUND?
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
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Midge M. Hyman
MIDGE M HYMAN COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, PC1133 AVE OF THE AMERICASNEW YORK, NY 10036-6710UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 036 | MANAGING MUTUAL FUNDS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2009 | 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 3, 2009 | 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 5, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 4, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 4, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 4, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 4, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 4, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 3, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 3, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 2, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 2, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 2, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 20, 2007 | 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. |
| Apr 25, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 25, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 27, 2007 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Jan 27, 2007 | COAR | TEAS CHANGE OF OWNER ADDRESS RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 25, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 25, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 25, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 3, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 3, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 2, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 2, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 2, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 1, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 1, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 17, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 17, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 2, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 19, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 19, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 17, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 16, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 16, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 16, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 10, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 10, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 12, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 11, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 11, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 7, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 7, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 2, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 30, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 11, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 25, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 25, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 22, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 13, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 8, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 15, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 16, 2001 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 10, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 29, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 21, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 25, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 3, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 17, 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. |
| Aug 5, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 29, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 21, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |