USPTO serial 76493339
JP
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FRENCH, CURTIS W
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 JP?
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.
Mark B. Eisen
MARK B EISEN DIMOCK STRATTON CLARIZIO LLP20 QUEEN ST WSTE 3202 BOX 102TORONTO, ON M5H 3R3Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | footwear, namely athletic footwear; sportswear, namely- shorts, shirts, headbands, wristbands, tracksuits, socks and sweatshirts | ACTIVE | Oct 1, 2002 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2005 | 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. |
| Oct 4, 2005 | 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 28, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 25, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 14, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 14, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 7, 2004 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| May 7, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 25, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | 1.BA | Sec. 1(B) CLAIM ADDED | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 30, 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. |
| Jul 28, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |