USPTO serial 76562901
BLUETECH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- OKEKE, BENJAMIN
- 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 BLUETECH?
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
Montréal, Québec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
A. YATES DOWELL, III
A YATES DOWELL III DOWELL & DOWELL PC2111 EISENHOWER AVE STE 406ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | STABLE AND NON-TOXIC SOLUTION OF READY-TO-USE X GAL USED IN DNA CLONING COMPRISING A SOLVENT FOR A CHROMOGENIC SUBSTRATE | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 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. |
| Nov 8, 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. |
| Apr 8, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 7, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 28, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 5, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 28, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 7, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 6, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 24, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 23, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 19, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 27, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 27, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 29, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 29, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 22, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 27, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 27, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 6, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 16, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 16, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 22, 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. |
| Jun 15, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 2, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 19, 2003 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |