USPTO serial 75709216
BLITZ POWER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SNAPP, TINA LOUISE
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 BLITZ POWER?
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
Langley, British Columbia VIM 3B7, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
David Grace
DAVID GRACE LOEB & LOEB LLP10100 SANTA MONICA BLVDSTE 2200LOS ANGELES, CA 90067Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | chewing gum, bubble gum and candy breath fresheners | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2006 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Jan 14, 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. |
| Jan 13, 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. |
| Jan 12, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 10, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 19, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 15, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 5, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 19, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 31, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 1, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 22, 2000 | 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. |
| Jan 7, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 6, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 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. |
| Aug 30, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 26, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |