USPTO serial 76461053
AEROVISION
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GRIFFIN, JAMES
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 AEROVISION?
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
St-Eustache, Quebec J7R 4K6, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Brewster Taylor
BREWSTER TAYLOR LARSON & TAYLOR, PLCTRANSPOTOMAC PLZ1199 N FAIRFAX ST STE 900ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1437Goods and services
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 21, 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 20, 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 21, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 12, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 11, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 11, 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 | — |
| Jun 18, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 28, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 5, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 29, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 29, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 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. |
| Mar 11, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |