USPTO serial 76605451
BEEF TRUFFLES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FRENCH, CURTIS W
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 BEEF TRUFFLES?
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
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Sheldon S. Lazarovltz
SHELDON S LAZAROVLTZ31 WESTGATE BLVDTORONTO ONTARIO, M3H 1N8CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | packaged hamburger meat patties, stuffed with cheese, vegetables, herbs and spices, not sold as sandwiches | 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 29, 2009 | 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 29, 2009 | 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 25, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 25, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 24, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 23, 2009 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 22, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 22, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 22, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 18, 2008 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 4, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 3, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 11, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 10, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 10, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 9, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 9, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 8, 2007 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 16, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 15, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 7, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 7, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 27, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 20, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 20, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 29, 2005 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Nov 16, 2005 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 16, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 11, 2005 | 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 10, 2005 | 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 11, 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 10, 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. |
| Mar 8, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 14, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |