USPTO serial 76304845
TWIN TURBO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- OH, WON TEAK
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 TWIN TURBO?
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
Saskatchewan, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Harold R. Woodard
HAROLD R WOODARD WOODARD EMHARDT NAUGHTON ET ALBANK ONE CTR TWR111 MONUMENT CIR STE 3700INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-5137Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Agricultural granular material conveyors for farming uses | 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 4, 2006 | 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 4, 2006 | 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. |
| May 31, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 31, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 27, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 26, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 25, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 16, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 4, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 4, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 25, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 22, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 13, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 19, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 19, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 9, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 23, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 23, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 19, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 31, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 14, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 14, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 25, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 9, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 9, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 9, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 8, 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. |
| Oct 18, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |