USPTO serial 76481291
LETTUCE EAT HEALTHIER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DAHLING, KRISTIN M
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - 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 LETTUCE EAT HEALTHIER?
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
North York, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Douglas S. Johnson
DOUGLAS S JOHNSON DENNISON ASSOCIATES133 RICHMOND ST W STE 301TORONTO, ON M5H 2L7CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 031 | service of operating a retail food outlet specializing in fruits and vegetables | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 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. |
| Dec 20, 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. |
| Dec 17, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 21, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 21, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 4, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 4, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 25, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 25, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 11, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 5, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 5, 2006 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 21, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 19, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 14, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 14, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 14, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 13, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 13, 2005 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 7, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 1, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 1, 2004 | CNSL | SU - SUSPENSION LETTER - WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 1, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 24, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 24, 2004 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 20, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 8, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 6, 2004 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 6, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 11, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2003 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 23, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| 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 11, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |