USPTO serial 76428032
ARMFOAM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HESIK, APRIL ANNE
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - 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 ARMFOAM?
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
Laval, Province of Quebec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Jess M Collen
Jess M Collen INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.800 SOUTH HIGHLAND AVENUETHE HOLYOKE-MANHATTAN BUILDINGWESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY 10562Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 017 | Protective equipment, namely, padding used in the manufacturing of sporting goods, police equipment and military equipment composed of bonded microspheres | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2008 | 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. |
| Nov 17, 2008 | 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. |
| Oct 1, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 18, 2008 | 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 18, 2008 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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. |
| Jan 7, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 7, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 7, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 26, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 21, 2007 | 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. |
| May 21, 2007 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 26, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 19, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 16, 2007 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Jan 9, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 16, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 15, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 15, 2006 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Sep 13, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 5, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 15, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 4, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 4, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 27, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jul 22, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 27, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 20, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 15, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 15, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 12, 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. |
| Nov 6, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |