USPTO serial 76335848
SUNBITES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- PRICE, WANDA
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 111 - 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 SUNBITES?
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
Rougemont, Quebec JOL 1MO, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Stephen J. Jeffries
STEPHEN J JEFFRIES HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP2099 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW STE 100WASHINGTON, DC 20006UNITED STATESGoods and services
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 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. |
| Sep 10, 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. |
| Feb 12, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 10, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 29, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 29, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 27, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 26, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 26, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 15, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 15, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 6, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 4, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 16, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 14, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 23, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 7, 2004 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 7, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 7, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 9, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 17, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 17, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 12, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 31, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 29, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 27, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 10, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |