USPTO serial 75868543
NYCAL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MICHOS, JOHN E
- 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 NYCAL?
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
CALGARY, ALBERTA, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
GARY D. KRUGMAN
GARY D KRUGMAN SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N WWASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SUBSTANCE CONSISTING ESSENTIALLY OF CALCITE AND WOLLASTONITE IN APPROXIMATE 5-1 PROPORTIONS, RESPECTIVELY, FOR USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION TRADE AS AN ADDITIVE TO BUILDING MATERIALS, NAMELY, STUCCO, PLASTER, MORTAR, GROUT, BRICKS, CONCRETE BLOCKS AND CONCRETE TILES, AND AS A SURFACE TREATMENT FINISH PREPARATION FOR THE EXTERIOR OF BUILDING SURFACES | 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 21, 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. |
| Jun 23, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 21, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 24, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 24, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 17, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 29, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 21, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 13, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 22, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 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. |
| May 4, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |