USPTO serial 76618576
PILECO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STEIN, JAMES W
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 107 - 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 PILECO?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
ROBERT M. BOWICK, JR.
ROBERT M BOWICK JR THE MATTHEWS FIRM2000 BERING DR STE 700HOUSTON, TX 77057UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 037 | Construction, namely, drilled shaft construction as well as servicing, installation, and custom manufacturing of pile driving tools and equipment | ACTIVE | Aug 19, 2004 |
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 10, 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. |
| Oct 10, 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. |
| Oct 10, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 28, 2006 | 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. |
| Feb 27, 2006 | 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 21, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 21, 2006 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Feb 21, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 14, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 27, 2006 | PBCR | WITHDRAWN FROM PUB - OG REVIEW QUERY | — |
| Jan 7, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jan 6, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 4, 2006 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Jan 3, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jan 3, 2006 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 17, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 13, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 13, 2005 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 13, 2005 | CEPE | COMBINED EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION ENTERED | — |
| Jun 13, 2005 | CEAP | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION MAILED | — |
| Jun 13, 2005 | CPEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT AND/OR PRIORITY ACTION - COMPLETED | — |
| Jun 6, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 10, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |