USPTO serial 76239800
TURF MATE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HWANG, JOHN C B
- 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 TURF MATE?
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
Rexdale, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lawrence E. Apolzon
LAWRENCE E APOLZON FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU PC866 UNITED NATIONS PLZNEW YORK, NY 10017UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 019 | removable flooring conversion panels for placement onto floors, athletic turfs, ice surfaces and the like | 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 30, 2008 | 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 30, 2008 | 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 2, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 1, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 1, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 1, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 30, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 28, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 28, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 26, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 10, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 9, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 6, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 6, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 19, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 26, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 25, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 25, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 29, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 29, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 19, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 9, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 23, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 21, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 19, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 6, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 6, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 27, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 27, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 18, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 19, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 2, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 2, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 22, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 30, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 17, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 30, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 30, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 23, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 15, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 15, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 25, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 12, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 6, 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 6, 2002 | ZZZY | PREVIOUS ACTION COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Jun 26, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 11, 2001 | CNEA | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| May 25, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |