USPTO serial 76469442
DURACAP
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BRECKENFELD, WILLIAM G
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 DURACAP?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Anne M. Sterba
G FRANKLIN ROTHWELL ESQ ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PCSTE 800 1425 K ST NWWASHINGTON, DC 20005UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITORS, WIRE WOUND POTENTIOMETERS, SELECTOR SWITCHES | ACTIVE | Dec 31, 1993 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 19, 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. |
| May 19, 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. |
| Oct 20, 2005 | CRML | CORRESPONDENCE MAILED | — |
| Oct 20, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 26, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 24, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 23, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 14, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 23, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 23, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 13, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 5, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 5, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 24, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 24, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 24, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 16, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 16, 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. |
| Jun 2, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |