USPTO serial 76052588
PEAK 10
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- AMOS, TANYA L
- 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 PEAK 10?
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
Lake City, FL
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Mary Dalton Baril
MARY DALTON BARIL MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE LLPONE JAMES CTR901 E CARY STRICHMOND, VA 23219-4030Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | Hosting the websites of others on a server for the global computer network | ACTIVE | Apr 23, 2000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2003 | 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. |
| Jan 15, 2003 | CNRU | DISAPPROVAL - AMENDMENT TO USE MAILED | — |
| Jan 14, 2003 | AAUD | AMENDMENT OF ALLEGED USE DISAPPROVED | — |
| Dec 16, 2002 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Oct 10, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Oct 6, 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. |
| Aug 22, 2002 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 22, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 15, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 15, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 15, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 11, 2002 | 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. |
| Jul 26, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 29, 2001 | 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. |
| Dec 7, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 9, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 31, 2000 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |