USPTO serial 76022943
EGENDA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RAUEN, JAMES
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 EGENDA?
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
Waterloo Ontario, CA
North York, Ontario, M2J 1P8, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
A. Yates Dowell, III
A YATES DOWELL III DOWELL & DOWELL PC2111 EISENHOWER AVE STE 406ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | information management software for government and utilities, namely, software for customer service and issue tracking, ordinance and by-law management, meeting and minutes management, utility and tax billing, contact management and sales lead tracking, time and expense tracking, bid management, revenue management, financial management and document management | 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 31, 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 31, 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. |
| Apr 4, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 1, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 13, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 1, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 1, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Dec 1, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 27, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 5, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 5, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 5, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 9, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 16, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 24, 2001 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 28, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |