USPTO serial 76036388
POKER PLAYER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HARDY LUDLOW, TARAH KIM
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 110 - 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 POKER PLAYER?
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
Concord, Ontario, L4K 4M2, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Richard J. Parr
RICHARD J PARR BERESKIN & PARRSTE 4000 SCOTIA PLZ BOX 40140 KING ST WTORONTO, ON M5H 3Y2Goods and services
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 28, 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. |
| May 2, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 2, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 3, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 2, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 1, 2004 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jul 15, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 15, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 20, 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. |
| Apr 19, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 26, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 2003 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jan 13, 2003 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 13, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 3, 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. |
| Mar 19, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 19, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 18, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 11, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 13, 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. |
| Sep 29, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |