USPTO serial 76619169
TED TUBE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DUBOIS, MICHELLE
- 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 TED TUBE?
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
Paradise Valley, AZ
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Richard C. Litman
RICHARD C LITMAN CRYSTAL CITY STATIONLITMAN LAW OFFICES LTDPO BOX 15035ARLINGTON, VA 22215-0035Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 044 | WEIGHT REDUCTION DIET PLANNING AND SUPERVISION; NAMELY, A MULTI-MONTH DIET PROGRAM SPECIFIC FOR DISEASE MANAGEMENT, ADULT OBESITY, MIGRAINE, HA, HPT, HYPERLIPIDEMIA, DM, ARTHRITIS, LONGEVITY, HEALTHY WOMEN, PEDIATRICS, ADOLESCENT OBESITY, HEART DISEASE, FOOD ALLERGIES, AND POST OBESITY SURGERY | ACTIVE | Sep 29, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 12, 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. |
| Sep 11, 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. |
| Jan 24, 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. |
| Jan 23, 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. |
| Dec 20, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 9, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 9, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 13, 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. |
| Jun 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. |
| Jun 8, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 15, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |