USPTO serial 76446208
Serial No. 76446208
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MARTIN, EUGENIA K
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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. 76446208?
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
82538 Geretsried, 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 | grinding discs being machine parts for residential, commercial and 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 8, 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. |
| Feb 8, 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. |
| Jul 12, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 11, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 11, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 10, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 10, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 10, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 21, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 21, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 23, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 6, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 26, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 4, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 4, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 11, 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 24, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 16, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |