USPTO serial 76364606
PROJETPROFILER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SAKAI, ADA HAN
- 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 PROJETPROFILER?
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
Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1S2, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Heidi A. Schiller, Esq.
HEIDI A SCHILLER ESQ405 WALTHAM ST PMB 406LEXINGTON, MA 02421UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | COMPUTER SOFTWARE, NAMELY DATABASE SOFTWARE FOR STORING, SEARCHING, REPORTING, AND ADMINISTERING FINANCIAL DATA FOR USE BY INVESTORS AND INVESTMENT ADVISORS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4, 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. |
| Jan 3, 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. |
| Aug 11, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 31, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 31, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 7, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 30, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 30, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 30, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 29, 2004 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 17, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 17, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 26, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 23, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 9, 2003 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 9, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 4, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 4, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 4, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 26, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 27, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 27, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 5, 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. |
| May 31, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |