USPTO serial 76136997
DIESELIGHT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LEVINE, HOWARD B
- 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 DIESELIGHT?
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
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 004 | Environmentally safe vegetable oil based diesel fuel, produced from either recycled vegetable oil or 100% virgin soy oil | ACTIVE | Aug 1, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 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. |
| Oct 24, 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. |
| Jun 30, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 23, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 20, 2003 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| May 8, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 8, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 6, 2003 | PETL | COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM PETITIONER | — |
| Apr 7, 2003 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 22, 2002 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 16, 2002 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Feb 13, 2002 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 30, 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. |
| Feb 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. |
| Feb 7, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |