USPTO serial 75843597
MPD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- JOHNSON, AISHA CLARKE
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 MPD?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
MARK I PEROFF
MARK I PEROFF KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP599 LEXINGTON AVENEW YORK, NY 10022-6030UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS FOR CONTROLLED RELEASE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 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. |
| Feb 22, 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. |
| Jul 27, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 27, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 9, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 9, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 14, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 14, 2003 | 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. |
| May 16, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 22, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 26, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 3, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 14, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 7, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 16, 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. |
| Mar 8, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |