USPTO serial 76367995
ESTERO BEACH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FINE, STEVEN
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 110 - 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 ESTERO BEACH?
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.
John M. Mings
JOHN M MINGS FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP1301 MCKINNEY, #5100HOUSTON, TX 77010-3095UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 043 | hotel, restaurant and bar services | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 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. |
| Sep 1, 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 21, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 19, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 19, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Apr 19, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Mar 12, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 20, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 30, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 30, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 27, 2003 | 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 27, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 27, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 24, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 22, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 1, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 1, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 29, 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 22, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |