USPTO serial 76602557
EZTOUCH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BOONE, JOHN C
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 104 - 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 EZTOUCH?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
William H. Brewster
WILLIAM H BREWSTER KILPATRICK & STOCKTON1100 PEACHTREE ST NE STE 2800ATLANTA, GA 30309UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Input and display operator interface panels for industrial automation controls | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2012 | 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. |
| Mar 21, 2012 | 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. |
| Aug 24, 2011 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 24, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 19, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 18, 2011 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 18, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 18, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 17, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 17, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 17, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 19, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 19, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 13, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 13, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 12, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 12, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 12, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 3, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 3, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 3, 2009 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jul 31, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 30, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 29, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 29, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 29, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 28, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 15, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 15, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 15, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 12, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 24, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 11, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Apr 11, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 27, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 27, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 27, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 26, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 9, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 2, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 2, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 3, 2005 | 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 3, 2005 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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. |
| Feb 18, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 10, 2004 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 10, 2004 | PARI | TEAS VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 11, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 27, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |