USPTO serial 76322097
ZEGO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FINK, GINA M
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 ZEGO?
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
Montreal (Quebec), CA
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 & SCHWAB666 3RD AVE 10TH FLNEW YORK, NY 10017UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Computer software and hardware for use in marketing products, conducting market research and delivering and tracking advertising, all by means of personal computers, wireless telephones and handsets, and other interactive electronic media | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 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. |
| Dec 22, 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. |
| May 26, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 25, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 22, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 19, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 5, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 22, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 22, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 20, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 10, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 1, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 26, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 26, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 23, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 27, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 22, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 7, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 7, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 26, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 3, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 3, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 14, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 19, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 7, 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 27, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |