USPTO serial 76547285
SPA SCHOOL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CRAWFORD, MARY
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 SPA SCHOOL?
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
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Brant Latham
BRANT LATHAM RICHES, MCKENZIE & HERBERT LLP2 BLOOR STREET EASTSUITE 1800TORONTO ONTARIO, M4W 3J5 CGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 041 | educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars and workshops and vocational school services relating to hydrotherapy, aromatherapy, reflexology, make-up artistry, skin care, facial care, nail care, dermatology, manicures and pedicures, aesthetics, cosmetology, electrolysis, massage therapy, salon management and spa management | 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 5, 2010 | 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 4, 2010 | 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 6, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 6, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 6, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 3, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 24, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 24, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 20, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 4, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 3, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 28, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 27, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 11, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 11, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 25, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 19, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 17, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 17, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 16, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 16, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 16, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 15, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 16, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 31, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 30, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 14, 2006 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Dec 14, 2006 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 30, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 30, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 29, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 29, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 29, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 7, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 1, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 1, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 1, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 1, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 23, 2005 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| May 23, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 5, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 4, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 3, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 8, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 19, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 19, 2004 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 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. |
| Mar 8, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |