USPTO serial 76055048
GLOBAL PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SNAPP, TINA LOUISE
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with GLOBAL PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS?
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.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
CLINTON TOWNSHIP, MI
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Matthew A. Newboles
MATTHEW A NEWBOLES STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER75 ENTERPRISE STE 250ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656-2626UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 041 | EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NAMELY, CONDUCTING CLASSES IN SEMINARS TO PROMOTE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVITY RELATED TO BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 26, 2004 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Apr 26, 2004 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Apr 26, 2004 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jan 12, 2004 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jan 12, 2004 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Oct 17, 2003 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Apr 3, 2003 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Jan 27, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 27, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 31, 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, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 9, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Sep 4, 2001 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 4, 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. |
| Apr 23, 2001 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 23, 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 18, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |