USPTO serial 76172774
IN MOLD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WATSON, JULIE A
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - 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 IN MOLD?
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.
James C Wray
1493 CHAIN BRIDGE RD STE 300MC LEAN, VA 22101-5726UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | MOLDING MACHINES, MOLDS, TOOLING AND PARTS THEREFOR FOR CREATING FINE PATTERN CAPABLE OF PRODUCING HOLOGRAPHIC IMAGES DIRECTLY ON SURFACES OF MOLDED AND FORMED PARTS AND PRODUCTS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2009 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Jul 29, 2009 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Jul 1, 2009 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Apr 19, 2006 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Jul 26, 2005 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jul 26, 2005 | 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. |
| Jul 26, 2005 | 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. |
| Dec 28, 2004 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Dec 27, 2004 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING A FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Dec 7, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 19, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 19, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 19, 2004 | 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. |
| Apr 2, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 2, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 2, 2003 | 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. |
| Sep 4, 2003 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Aug 29, 2003 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jun 3, 2003 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| May 30, 2003 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| May 28, 2003 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Apr 22, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Mar 24, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 24, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 7, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 29, 2002 | 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. |
| Sep 16, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 16, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 14, 2002 | 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 13, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 30, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 24, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 24, 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 30, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 26, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |