USPTO serial 76554708
SAWBUCKS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KON, ELISSA GARBER
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 SAWBUCKS?
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
Montreal, Quebec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Max Shaftal
MAX SHAFTAL PATZIK, FRANK & SAMOTNY LTD150 S WACKER DR STE 900CHICAGO, IL 60606UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | RETAIL VARIETY STORE SERVICES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 2006 | 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. |
| Aug 22, 2006 | 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 20, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 20, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 19, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 23, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 23, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 23, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 15, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 15, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 13, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 13, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 27, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 3, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 30, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 13, 2003 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |