USPTO serial 76035219
WAVEFRONT LASIK
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CHICOSKI, JENNIFER D
- 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 WAVEFRONT LASIK?
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
Richmond Hill, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Linda M. Byrne
LINDA M BYRNE MERCHANT & GOULD PCP O BOX 2910MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0910UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | Medical and eye surgical 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 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. |
| Aug 11, 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. |
| Dec 30, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 29, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 24, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 4, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 18, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 14, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 15, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 17, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 17, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 18, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 3, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 3, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 16, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 15, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 15, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 24, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 9, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 15, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 27, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 23, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 20, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 6, 2000 | CNEA | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Sep 26, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 22, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |