USPTO serial 76023490
WATER BRA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STOIDES, KATHERINE
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 WATER BRA?
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.
Bruce L. Adams
BRUCE L ADAMS ADAMS & WILKS50 BROADWAY 31ST FLNEW YORK, NY 10004UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | Lingerie | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 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. |
| Nov 26, 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 25, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 25, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 27, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 22, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 18, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 21, 2004 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Apr 29, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 29, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 26, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 26, 2004 | 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 1, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 6, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 11, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 7, 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. |
| Nov 8, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 26, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 26, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 26, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 25, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 18, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |