USPTO serial 76253909
FULLFLEX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WELLS, CHRISTOPHER
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 FULLFLEX?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
BRIAN J WINTERFELDT
CHRISTINE M BAKER MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO666 THIRD AVENEW YORK, NY 10028UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | ski boots, hiking boots, athletic boots and sports boots | ACTIVE | — |
| 028 | sports articles, namely, ice skates, figure skates, recreational ice skates, speed skates, children's ice skates, hockey skates, hockey goaltender skates, roller skates, in-line roller skates, in-line roller hockey skates, in-line roller racing skates, in-line roller training skates, in-line roller skates for fitness and recreation, all-terrain skates and skis | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 20, 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. |
| Jun 20, 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 5, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 5, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 5, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 1, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Oct 30, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 30, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 11, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 27, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 27, 2006 | 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. |
| Apr 18, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 18, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 30, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 30, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 29, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 29, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 16, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 16, 2005 | 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. |
| Mar 17, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 17, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 10, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 12, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 19, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 19, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 4, 2004 | FAXX | FAX SENT | — |
| Mar 18, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 9, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 6, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 28, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 28, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 13, 2003 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 28, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 21, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 2, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 19, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 19, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 9, 2002 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 19, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 11, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 21, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 10, 2001 | CNEA | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Aug 14, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |