USPTO serial 76442852
HILINE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- NELSON, EDWARD
- 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 HILINE?
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
22844 Norderstedt, DE
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
John H. Weber
JOHN H WEBER BAKER & HOSTETLER LLPWASHINGTON SQ STE 11001050 CONNECTICUT AVE N WWASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Machines for conveying, feeding and mixing of solids, liquids, or gases, and valves constituting parts thereof for commercial and industrial use; electric motors, couplings and drives for pumps and feeding and mixing machines | ACTIVE | — |
| 037 | Maintenance and repair of pumps and dosing machines; rental of pumps, dosing machines and process control apparatus | ACTIVE | — |
| 042 | Consulting services in the fields of pumping, blending of liquids, plant process control techniques | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 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. |
| Apr 23, 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. |
| Sep 9, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 8, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 8, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 18, 2005 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Oct 20, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 20, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 20, 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. |
| Jan 5, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 25, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 15, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 10, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 10, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 24, 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. |
| Feb 4, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 21, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |