USPTO serial 76128242
GAMEBRUSH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MULLEN, MARK
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 111 - 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 GAMEBRUSH?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Frederick B. Ziesenheim
FREDERICK B ZIESENHEIM WEBB ZIESENHEIM LOGSDON ORKIN & HANSON PKOPPERS BLDG436 7TH AVE STE 436PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-1818Goods 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2007 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Apr 12, 2007 | 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. |
| Apr 12, 2007 | 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. |
| Sep 14, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 14, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 14, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 13, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 8, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 24, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 24, 2006 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Feb 15, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 15, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 15, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 15, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 8, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 8, 2005 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Feb 8, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 7, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 6, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 3, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 29, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 29, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 30, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 14, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 2, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 2, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 28, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 14, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 10, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 9, 2003 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Aug 16, 2002 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jun 28, 2002 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jun 27, 2002 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jun 19, 2002 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jun 10, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 10, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 10, 2001 | 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. |
| Dec 9, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 27, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 26, 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. |
| Feb 25, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |