USPTO serial 76419994
VERYLUBE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FLETCHER, TRACY L
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 VERYLUBE?
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
Kharkiv 61018, UA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Leslye B. Davidson, Esq.
LESLYE B DAVIDSON ESQ DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC485 SEVENTH AVENEW YORK, NY 10018UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 004 | graphite lubricants; non-chemical additives for motor fuel; lubricating grease for vehicles; lubricating grease for machines; lubricating grease for weapons; grease for belts; all purpose lubricants; industrial lubricants; lubricating oil for industrial use; motor oil; petroleum jelly for industrial use; tallow; grease for industrial machines; textile oil for industrial use | 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 23, 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 21, 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. |
| Jun 3, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 2, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 6, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 20, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 2, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 15, 2003 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Jun 11, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 11, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 2, 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. |
| Mar 31, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 30, 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 19, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 12, 2002 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 12, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |