USPTO serial 76323804
UP IN FLAMES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MAYERSCHOFF, GLENN
- 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 UP IN FLAMES?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Stephen B. Salai
STEPHEN B SALAI HARTER, SECREST & EMERY LLP1600 BAUSCH AND LOMB PLROCHESTER, NY 14604-2711UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 028 | equipment sold as a unit for playing an educational game for youngsters about the hazards of smoking | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2004 | 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. |
| Nov 16, 2004 | 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. |
| Apr 20, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 9, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 11, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 12, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 12, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 28, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 12, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 12, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 15, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 26, 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 25, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 19, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 13, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |