USPTO serial 76264174
DECISIONCULTURE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CARROLL, DORITT
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 DECISIONCULTURE?
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
Ottawa, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Eric T. Fingerhut
ERIC T FINGERHUT SHAW PITTMAN2300 N ST NWWASHINGTON, DC 20037-1122UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | ON-LINE INTERNET MAGAZINE DEALING IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUBJECT MATTER AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE USAGE | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2005 | 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. |
| Feb 9, 2005 | 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. |
| Feb 9, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 14, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 17, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 22, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 13, 2003 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jan 27, 2003 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 27, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 13, 2003 | 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. |
| Sep 18, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 19, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 16, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 9, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |