USPTO serial 76158449
PACE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- VANSTON, KATHY
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 107 - 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 PACE?
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.
Joel E Siegel
JOEL E SIEGEL WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMERCITICORP CTR STE 3800500 W MADISON STCHICAGO, IL 60661-2511Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Oil-water separators | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2009 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Dec 9, 2009 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Oct 29, 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. |
| Oct 29, 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. |
| Apr 2, 2009 | UNDC | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - COURTESY COPY MAILED | — |
| Apr 2, 2009 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Apr 2, 2009 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-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. |
| Apr 2, 2009 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 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. |
| Apr 2, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 12, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 29, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 29, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 29, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 29, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 29, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 28, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 28, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 27, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 25, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 14, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 14, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 10, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 30, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 18, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 18, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 17, 2004 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| May 17, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 3, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 13, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 10, 2002 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 4, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 9, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 10, 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 27, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 19, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |