USPTO serial 76397915
PROTÈK EASYFIT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LORENZO, KATHLEEN H
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE SECTION
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with PROTÈK EASYFIT?
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.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
William D. O'Neill
William D. O'Neill Senniger Powers LLP100 North Broadway, 17th FloorSt. Louis, MO 63102UNITED 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.
- Other trademarks owned by MICROACTIVE CORP.
- Other trademarks owned by MICROACTIVE CORP.
- Other trademarks owned by Bernard Technologies, Inc.
- Other trademarks in Class 009
- Other trademarks in Class 010
- Similar marks named PROTÈK EASYFIT
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2008 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Nov 24, 2008 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Nov 1, 2008 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Sep 17, 2008 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 22, 2008 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Mar 11, 2008 | ETOP | EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE PROCESS - TERMINATED | — |
| Sep 27, 2007 | ETOF | EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 28, 2007 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| Aug 8, 2007 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jul 26, 2007 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jul 26, 2007 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jul 19, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 17, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 28, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 28, 2007 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Jun 28, 2007 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jun 28, 2007 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jun 28, 2007 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Dec 28, 2006 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Dec 27, 2006 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Dec 8, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 9, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 14, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 17, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 5, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 17, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 16, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Feb 27, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 6, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 6, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 10, 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. |
| Aug 26, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 22, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |