USPTO serial 76268290
LGP BUILDER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CROSS, TRACY L
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 LGP BUILDER?
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.
Wayne F. Reinke
WAYNE F REINKE HESLIN & ROTHENBERG PC5 COLUMBIA CIRALBANY, NY 12203-5156UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | computer software for providing knowledge support and interactive guidance to a user's desktop in the form of guided coaching and intelligent context-focused directions to perform unfamiliar tasks at the same time that the user uses desktop and web-based software applications | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 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. |
| Jan 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. |
| Jun 9, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 3, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 18, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 7, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 7, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 17, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 28, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 25, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 1, 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. |
| Sep 27, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 13, 2001 | AMPX | PRELIMINARY/VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT - ENTERED | — |