USPTO serial 75869392
STUART BROADCASTING
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GARTNER, JOHN M
- 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 STUART BROADCASTING?
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
Toronto, Ontario, CA
TORONTO, ONTARIO, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
JAMES M SLATTERY
JAMES M SLATTERY BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCHPO BOX 747FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 041 | ON-LINE INTERACTIVE GAMING SERVICES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 19, 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. |
| Oct 19, 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. |
| Mar 22, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 29, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 22, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 16, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 16, 2004 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 16, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 16, 2004 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 7, 2004 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 7, 2004 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 7, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 18, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 18, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 18, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 30, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 2, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 17, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 17, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 17, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 19, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 19, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 21, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 1, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 23, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 22, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 19, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 18, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 27, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 27, 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. |
| Jun 23, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 9, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 1, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 15, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 4, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |