USPTO serial 76312805
GOLD FISH COMMUNICATIONS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CORDOVA, RAUL
- 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 GOLD FISH COMMUNICATIONS?
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.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
N Heidi A. Carpenter
HEIDI A CARPENTER FAFINSKI MARK & JOHNSON, PA775 PR CTR DR STE 400EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Production of print, audio and video commercial; advertising services,namely, creating corporate and brand identity for others; advertising and marketing services, namely videos, websites, broadcast television shows,brochures, direct mail, and print ads for others; production of audio or video infomercial; direct mail advertising; and business marketing consulting services | ACTIVE | Dec 5, 1992 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 5, 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. |
| Oct 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. |
| Feb 13, 2006 | 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. |
| Feb 10, 2006 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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. |
| Feb 3, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 19, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jul 15, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 7, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 3, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 10, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 8, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 26, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 31, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 15, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 28, 2003 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Mar 4, 2003 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 4, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 12, 2002 | 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. |
| Oct 7, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 7, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 27, 2002 | 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. |
| Feb 14, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 7, 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. |
| Dec 5, 2001 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Dec 3, 2001 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Nov 16, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 4, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |