USPTO serial 76107971
BONZER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DWYER, JOHN D
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 BONZER?
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
Chennai - 600 028, IN
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Business consultation and business consultation via video-conferencing and via local and global computer network, all in the field of reputation management, business organizational behavior, marketing, effective business communicating, corporate strategy, building and protecting corporate reputation, business auditing and analyzing perceptions of key stake holders, work life, work quality and productivity, office culture, corporate motivation, total reputation management, and conducting business surveys of workers | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2009 | 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. |
| Jan 22, 2009 | 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. |
| Jun 26, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 26, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 26, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 23, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 22, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 22, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 22, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 15, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 14, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 14, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 14, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 13, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 13, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 26, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 24, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 24, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 24, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 24, 2005 | CRML | CORRESPONDENCE MAILED | — |
| Oct 24, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 21, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 3, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 3, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 11, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 11, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 11, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 10, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 10, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 25, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 25, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 1, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 1, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 1, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 10, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 10, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 5, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 21, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Feb 20, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 21, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 21, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 15, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 14, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 20, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 20, 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. |
| Mar 15, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 5, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 1, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |