USPTO serial 76186182
G-SAVIOUR
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SPARACINO, MARK V
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 G-SAVIOUR?
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
Suginami-ku, Tokyo, JP
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Adrienne L. White
ADRIENNE L WHITE BURNS DOANE SWECKER & MATHIS LLPP O BOX 1404ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | CANDY, CHOCOLATE, BUBBLE GUM, CHEWING GUM, COOKIES, ICE CREAM AND FROZEN CONFECTIONS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 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. |
| Apr 13, 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. |
| Mar 25, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 15, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 14, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 3, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 19, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 21, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 21, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 21, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 31, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 20, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 6, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 21, 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. |
| May 4, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 2, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 26, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 22, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |