USPTO serial 76254261
AIRCLIP
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HERMAN, RUSS
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 AIRCLIP?
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
Markham, Ontario L3R 9Z6, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Charles A. Wilkinson
CHARLES A WILKINSONP O BOX 1426BETHLEHEM, PA 18016-1426UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Eyewear and eyewear accessories, namely, eyeglasses, sunglasses, clip-on sunglasses, clip-on novelty glasses, eyeglass bridges and attachment clips, lenses, kits for assembling clip-on glasses comprised of eyeglass lenses, eyeglass bridges and lens clips for clipping auxiliary lenses to primary eyeglasses, and clip-on attachments, namely clips for securing auxiliary lenses onto primary eyeglasses | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 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. |
| Oct 4, 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. |
| Mar 2, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 2, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 16, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 16, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 4, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 4, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 3, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 7, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 7, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 5, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 4, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 28, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 28, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 27, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 3, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 14, 2005 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 14, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 12, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 8, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 4, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 12, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 30, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Dec 5, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 5, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 5, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 18, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 9, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 9, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 9, 2002 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Oct 30, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Oct 25, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 8, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 8, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 5, 2002 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Dec 12, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 24, 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 10, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |