USPTO serial 76401924
AN ALTERNATIVE TOUCH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GRIFFIN, JAMES
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 AN ALTERNATIVE TOUCH?
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.
M. Kelly Tillery
M KELLY TILLERY LEONARD TILLERY & SCOILLA LLP1515 MARKET ST STE 1800PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102-1918UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | massage and related body therapy services | ACTIVE | Sep 12, 2001 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 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. |
| Dec 13, 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. |
| Jul 15, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 2, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 17, 2004 | 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. |
| Apr 26, 2004 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Mar 19, 2004 | PETL | COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM PETITIONER | — |
| Mar 19, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 12, 2004 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Nov 10, 2003 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 10, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 8, 2003 | 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 3, 2003 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 11, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 11, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 18, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 18, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 9, 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. |
| Sep 5, 2002 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Aug 20, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 11, 2002 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| May 14, 2002 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| May 14, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 14, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |