USPTO serial 76420995
Serial No. 76420995
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WELLS, CHRISTOPHER
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 Serial No. 76420995?
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
Abbotsford, British Columbia, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
JoAnn M. Holmes
AUMA N REGGY TROUTMAN SANDERS LLPBANK OF AMERICA PLZ STE 5200600 PEACHTREE ST NEATLANTA, GA 30308-2216Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Computerized on-line ordering services in the field of food | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 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. |
| Oct 13, 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. |
| Feb 28, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 27, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 17, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 16, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 11, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 16, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 15, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 11, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 11, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 12, 2005 | ZZZY | PREVIOUS ACTION COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Sep 30, 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. |
| Aug 19, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 19, 2004 | EMRV | EMAIL RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 4, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 5, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 20, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 2, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 30, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 16, 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. |
| Nov 22, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 25, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |