USPTO serial 76563917
OPTIMUM SLIM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HWANG, JOHN C B
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 OPTIMUM SLIM?
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
Richmond, British Columbia, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Thomas M. Galgano
THOMAS M GALGANO ESQ GALGANO & ASSOCIATES PLLC300 RABRO DR STE 133HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | waffles | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17, 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. |
| Oct 17, 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. |
| Mar 21, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 20, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 20, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 20, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 13, 2007 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 12, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 5, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 4, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 2, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 31, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 31, 2006 | PGRR | PETITION GRANTED - RESPONSE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 12, 2006 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 12, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 7, 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. |
| Jul 7, 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. |
| Dec 8, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 8, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 17, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 29, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Oct 21, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 20, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 7, 2004 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Sep 7, 2004 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Sep 7, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 26, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 28, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 28, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 3, 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 2, 2004 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 2, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 4, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 23, 2003 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |