USPTO serial 76212454
HIGH DEFINITION STEEL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- THOMPKINS, TRICIA
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 HIGH DEFINITION STEEL?
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
Richmond Hill, Ontario, CA
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 008 | Flatware, namely - spoons, forks, knives, large serving spoons, large slotted serving spoons, large serving forks, cake servers, lasagna servers, butter knives, salad tongs, soup ladles, gravy ladles, pie servers, sugar spoons, spaghetti servers, potato mashers, and ice cream spoons | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 29, 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. |
| Mar 29, 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. |
| Aug 31, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 17, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 30, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 21, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 21, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 18, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 29, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 18, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 7, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 6, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 8, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 11, 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 2, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |