USPTO serial 76492944
GUARD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BUSH, KAREN K
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 GUARD?
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
Lachine, Quebec H8T 3C8, CA
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 NWWASHINGTON, DC 20036Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 006 | padlocks, armored padlocks, padlock accessories, keying pins, patio door locks, discus padlocks, locks, combination locks, rim locks, chains, chain locks, cable locks, keyed and non-keyed cylinders, interchangeable core cylinders, key tags, key accessories, mortise locks, window locks, bicycle locks, motorcycle locks, u locks, keys and key blanks, key cabinets, door bars, steering wheel locks, gun locks, luggage locks | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 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 17, 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 19, 2005 | CRML | CORRESPONDENCE MAILED | — |
| Oct 19, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 27, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 11, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 26, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 26, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 19, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 19, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 13, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 19, 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. |
| Aug 14, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |