USPTO serial 76194410
IR SYSTEMS INC.
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STIGLITZ, SUSAN R
- 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 IR SYSTEMS INC.?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
D Peter Hochberg
D PETER HOCHBERG D PETER HOCHBERG CO LPA1940 E 6TH ST 6TH FLCLEVELAND, OH 44114-2294UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | Computer consulting services; computer software development for others, excluding predictive and preventative maintenance of industrial equipment used in the fields of heating and cooling, thermal insulation, engines, electronics, motor drives and electrical power transformers utilizing thermographic imaging | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 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. |
| May 16, 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. |
| Oct 8, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 7, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 31, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 11, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 29, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 8, 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. |
| Jun 25, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 10, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 19, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 21, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 16, 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 12, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 1, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |