USPTO serial 75912249
MULTI PRO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 601
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STINE, DAVID
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with MULTI PRO?
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.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Vonda, Saskatchewan, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
JOHN L. AMBROGI
JOHN L AMBROGI Partridge IP Law P.C.321 North Clark StreetSuite 720CHICAGO, IL 60654Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Power Operated Machines, Namely, Agricultural Hay Bale Processors | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2013 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 2, 2005 | MAB1 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - EXPRESS ABANDONMENT | — |
| Mar 2, 2005 | ABN1 | ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED | — |
| Mar 2, 2005 | NAUD | REPORT UNRESPONSIVE AMENDMENT - COMPLETED | — |
| Feb 3, 2005 | LOAP | LETTER OF ABANDONMENT PROCESSED | — |
| Feb 3, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 30, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 30, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 2, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 2, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 29, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 4, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 4, 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. |
| Mar 4, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 24, 2003 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Dec 31, 2002 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 31, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 17, 2002 | 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. |
| Oct 17, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 3, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 25, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 16, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 14, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 13, 2001 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Mar 12, 2001 | 44DD | SEC. 44(D) CLAIM DELETED | — |
| Jan 16, 2001 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Dec 4, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 6, 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 28, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |