USPTO serial 76273871
IGE INTERNATIONAL GREENHOUSE EQUIPMENT INC.
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BUSH, KAREN K
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 IGE INTERNATIONAL GREENHOUSE EQUIPMENT INC.?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lawrence E. Abelman
LAWRENCE E ABELMAN ABELMAN FRAYNE & SCHWAB150 E 42ND STNEW YORK, NY 10017-5612UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Retail store services featuring greenhouse equipment and products | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 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. |
| Aug 10, 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. |
| Jan 12, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 11, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 10, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 28, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 28, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 28, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 22, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 22, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 12, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 7, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 13, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 13, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 30, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 16, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 25, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 19, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 4, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 6, 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 21, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |