USPTO serial 76052352
TANK
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HAYES, GINA CLARK
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
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 TANK?
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
Ascot QLD 4053, AU
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
SHEILA N. WEINBERGER
SHEILA N WEINBERGER HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE LLP275 MIDDLEFIELD RDMENLO PARK, CA 94025-3506UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | BUSINESS CONSULTING SERVICES IN THE FIELDS OF PRODUCT INNOVATION, MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF INNOVATION PRODUCTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, COMMERCIALIZATION OF INVENTIONS, AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER | ACTIVE | — |
| 042 | INNOVATION PRODUCT RESEARCH AND DESIGN SERVICES; LICENSING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSULTING 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 23, 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. |
| Mar 15, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 23, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 16, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 9, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Sep 10, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 10, 2001 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 6, 2001 | 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. |
| Nov 21, 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. |
| Oct 27, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 12, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |