USPTO serial 76575238
EXACT-T
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MACIOL II, EUGENE VALENTINE-JO
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 EXACT-T?
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
Outremont (Quebec), CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Thomas W. Brooke
THOMAS W BROOKE HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP2029 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW STE 100WASHINGTON, DC 20006-6801UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | Electric tea maker | 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 31, 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 31, 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. |
| Apr 4, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 4, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 4, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 3, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 3, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 20, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 20, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 27, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 27, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 9, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 2, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 29, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 29, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 25, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 24, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 20, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 3, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 10, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 10, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 25, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |