USPTO serial 75633158
JAYBIS ECOM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STOKOLS, GWEN P
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 JAYBIS ECOM?
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
753 22 Uppsala, SE
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Larence E. Abelman
LARENCE E ABELMAN ABELMAN FRAYNE & SCHWAB666 3RD AVE 10TH FLNEW YORK, NY 10017UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | computer programs in the field of global computer network and e-commerce for use in developing the business process with enterprise resource planning systems | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 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. |
| Jun 24, 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. |
| Nov 10, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 9, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 18, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 6, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 3, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 10, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 10, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 20, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 17, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 14, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 14, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 27, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 3, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 4, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 17, 2001 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 23, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 23, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 1, 2000 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 22, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 29, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 31, 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 31, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 27, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 23, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |