USPTO serial 76403343
FIREFLY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- PAPPAS, MATTHEW
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 107 - 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 FIREFLY?
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
Le Gardeur, Quebec J5Z 2P4, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lawrence E. Abelman
LAWRENCE E ABELMAN ABELMAN FRAYNE & SCHWAB666 3RD AVE 10TH FLNEW YORK, NY 10017UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 013 | Ammunition | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 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. |
| Feb 17, 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. |
| Jun 15, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 15, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 13, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 3, 2006 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Feb 7, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 12, 2005 | GRML | CORRESPONDENCE E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 12, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 30, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 19, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 19, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 15, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 15, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 23, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 18, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 10, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 14, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 14, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 17, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 17, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 11, 2004 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 12, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 8, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Mar 27, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 3, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 3, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 28, 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 21, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |