USPTO serial 76318724
LEGAL EXPERT PAGES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KEATING, MICHAEL P
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - 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 LEGAL EXPERT PAGES?
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
Wilmington, DE
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Jordan A. LaVine
JORDAN A LAVINE COMMERCEAKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER ET AL2005 MARKET ST STE 2200PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-7014Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 016 | legal publications, namely, magazines, newspapers, newsletters and supplements concerning legal issues | 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 8, 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. |
| Feb 8, 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 27, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 21, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 25, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 15, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 19, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 19, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 13, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 16, 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. |
| Jul 5, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 5, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 18, 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. |
| Dec 18, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |