USPTO serial 76501829
SMART CLIP
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MURRAY, DAVID T
- 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 SMART CLIP?
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
78320 La Verriere, FR
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Fred W. Hathaway
FRED W HATHAWAY BURNS DOANE SWECKER & MATHIS LLPPOST OFFICE BOX 1404ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 012 | Vehicle parts, namely, wiper arms, wiper blades, and connectors and joining pieces to connect the wiper arms and blades, and sold as a unit therewith | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 26, 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. |
| Apr 26, 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. |
| Sep 28, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 28, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 28, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 28, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 23, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 8, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 8, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 7, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 7, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 6, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 22, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 21, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 9, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 5, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 4, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 17, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 11, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 17, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 17, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 25, 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. |
| Sep 22, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |