USPTO serial 76448201
NEOMAX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ZAK, HENRY
- Law office
- LAW OFFICE 117 - 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 NEOMAX?
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
Granby, QUEBEC J2G 3Y3, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Michael A. Grow
MICHAEL A GROW ARENT FOX PLLC1050 CONNECTICUT AVE NWWASHINGTON, DC 20036UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 017 | neoprene for use in the manufacture of protective clothing, namely, protective rainwear, fire retardant clothing, high visibility clothing, and electric arc resistant clothing; synthetic rubber for use in the manufacture of protective clothing, namely, protective rainwear, fire retardant clothing, high visibility clothing, and electric arc resistant clothing; polymer in sheet form and neoprene coated to woven and non-woven fabrics for use in the manufacture of protecting clothing, namely, protective rainwear, fire retardant clothing, high visibility clothing, and electric arc resistant clothing | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 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. |
| Sep 22, 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 24, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 23, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 23, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 13, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 13, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 12, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 28, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 28, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 29, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 7, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Aug 11, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 11, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 28, 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 | — |