USPTO serial 76233667
SANDPIPER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KING, CHRISTINA B
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 109 - 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 SANDPIPER?
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
Botafogo, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BR
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Robert M. Wasnofski, Jr.
ROBERT M WASNOFSKI JR BAKER BOTTS, LLP30 ROCKERFELLER PLZNVY, NY 10112UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | Clothing and accessories for man, namely shirts, t-shirts, pants, jeans, shorts, coats, jackets, socks and belts; as well as clothes for women, namely, blouses, skirts, dresses, vest, tops pants, coats and belts | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 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. |
| Nov 16, 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. |
| Nov 16, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 15, 2009 | UNDC | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - COURTESY COPY MAILED | — |
| Apr 21, 2009 | UNDC | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - COURTESY COPY MAILED | — |
| Apr 20, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 20, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 20, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 17, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 17, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Apr 17, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Oct 17, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Oct 17, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 12, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 12, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 11, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 11, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 9, 2007 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Oct 9, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 9, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 4, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 4, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 1, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 13, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 13, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 6, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 8, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 8, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 27, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 27, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 26, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 25, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 24, 2004 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 9, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 9, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 6, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 9, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 16, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 16, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 16, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 31, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 12, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 18, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 20, 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. |
| Jul 17, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |