USPTO serial 75838162
WILLIAMS COFFEE PUB
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RADEMACHER, MARK A
- 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 WILLIAMS COFFEE PUB?
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
Kitchener, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Richard A. Flynt
RICHARD A FLYNT ROYLANCE ABRAMS BERDO & GOODMAN, LLP1300 19TH ST NW STE 600WASHINGTON, DC 20036-1649UNITED STATESGoods and services
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 7, 2006 | 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 7, 2006 | 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. |
| Jun 5, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 23, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 9, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 8, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 28, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 16, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 16, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 15, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 24, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 24, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 23, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 20, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 19, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Dec 1, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 1, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 30, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 25, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 29, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 3, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 1, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 21, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 23, 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. |
| Apr 18, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |