USPTO serial 76531966
MARTINX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MEIER, SHARON A
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 112 - 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 MARTINX?
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.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
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 LLPSUITE 3202, BOX 10220 QUEEN ST WESTTORONTO ONTARIO, M5H 3R3Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 013 | explosion prevention products, systems and equipment, namely, foil mesh used in containers of flammable liquids for the purpose of preventing explosions and sloshing and reduction of hydrocarbon emissions, and containers containing the foil mesh | ACTIVE | — |
| 045 | explosion prevention services, namely, modifying containers of flammable liquids for explosion resistance and reduction of hydrocarbon emissions | 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 30, 2008 | 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 30, 2008 | 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. |
| Jan 11, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 2, 2007 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Nov 1, 2007 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Oct 15, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 15, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 15, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 21, 2007 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| May 17, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 17, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 17, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 16, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 26, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 23, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 23, 2006 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| May 5, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 4, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 2, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 1, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 20, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 23, 2005 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Aug 16, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 16, 2005 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 22, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 20, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 9, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 18, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 18, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 18, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 24, 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. |
| Nov 24, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |