USPTO serial 76308174
COLOMER GROUP 1792
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FROMM, MARTHA L
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 COLOMER GROUP 1792?
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
08500 Vic Barcelona, ES
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
JOHN C MCMAHON
JOHN C MCMAHON LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C MCMAHONP O BOX 30069KANSAS CITY, MO 64112-0669UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | Cleaning preparations, namely, cleaners for cleaning leather, animal skins and footwear | 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 16, 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. |
| Feb 16, 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. |
| Jul 21, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 20, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 19, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 19, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 6, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 6, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 20, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 19, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 19, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 18, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 13, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 13, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 27, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 27, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 16, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 15, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 12, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 19, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 12, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 31, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 1, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 19, 2004 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Feb 5, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Feb 3, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 3, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 2, 2004 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 2, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 26, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 26, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 28, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 10, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 9, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 9, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 25, 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. |
| Jun 3, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 3, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 30, 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. |
| Nov 28, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |