USPTO serial 76158115
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
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.
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.
PONTASSIEVE (Florence), IT
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lawrence E Abhlman
LAWRENCE E ABHLMAN ABELMAN FRAYNE & SCHWAB150 E 42ND STNEW YORK, NY 10017-5612UNITED STATES| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 033 | Wines, spirits and liquors | ACTIVE | — |
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 15, 2006 | 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. |
| Aug 15, 2006 | 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 17, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 16, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 28, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 24, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 18, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 9, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 9, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 14, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 14, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 22, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 4, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 27, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 21, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 21, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 10, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 30, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 8, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 23, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 23, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 20, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 29, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 30, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Mar 7, 2002 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 19, 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 2, 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 26, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 23, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |