USPTO serial 76249243
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
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.
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.
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Eric Gallender
ERIC GALLENDER BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONEP O BOX 10395CHICAGO, IL 60610-0395UNITED STATES| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | computerized on-line wireless services in the field of comparing pricing and availability of consumer products; inventory control services, namely, computerized on-line product distribution reporting and control | ACTIVE | — |
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 13, 2007 | 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. |
| May 17, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 16, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 23, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 23, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 29, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 25, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 30, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 29, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 17, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 10, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 10, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 30, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 29, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 10, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 20, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 17, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 17, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 20, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 20, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 14, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 17, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 4, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 28, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 28, 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. |
| Aug 3, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 6, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |