USPTO serial 76530501
DECORGANEX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SOUDERS, MICHAEL J
- 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 DECORGANEX?
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
Ville Dgelis (Quebec) G5T 1R1, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Ira S. Dorman
IRA S DORMAN330 ROBERTS STSTE 200EAST HARTFORD, CT 06108Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 031 | MULCH COMPRISED OF SHREDDED WOOD FIBERS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE PEAT MOSS | 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 29, 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. |
| May 29, 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. |
| Oct 31, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 31, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 19, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 16, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 15, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 14, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 6, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 6, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 7, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 4, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 4, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 9, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 27, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 22, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 22, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 23, 2004 | 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. |
| Jan 22, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 27, 2003 | AMPX | PRELIMINARY/VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT - ENTERED | — |
| Oct 27, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 27, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |