USPTO serial 76444010
NEUROCHARGE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FRENCH, CURTIS W
- 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 NEUROCHARGE?
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
NeuroStream Technologies, Inc.
Port Coquitlam, B.C., CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
BRUCE HARAGUCHI
BRUCE HARAGUCHI SEYFARTH SHAW LLP55 E MONROE STSTE 4300CHICAGO, IL 60603Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | battery chargers for recharging batteries of implantable biomedical devices | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 1, 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. |
| Aug 1, 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. |
| Jan 3, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 30, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 2, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 2, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 19, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 28, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 25, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 24, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 7, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 25, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 25, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 25, 2005 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Sep 27, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 8, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 17, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 4, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 28, 2003 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 28, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 13, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 9, 2003 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Nov 27, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Nov 22, 2002 | CNEA | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Nov 18, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 15, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |