USPTO serial 76622483
HANSCO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RHIM, ANDREW
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 HANSCO?
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
Mississauga, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
CHRISTOPHER H. KOZLOWSKI
CHRISTOPHER H. KOZLOWSKI KOZLOWSKI & COMPANY5065 Forest Hill DriveMississauga, Ontario, L5M 5A7CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | Processed beans; processed peas; lentils; pickles; dried fruits; fruit puips; vegetable oil for cooking; corn oil for food; processed nuts; snacks, namely, potato chips; canned legumes; canned foods, namely, canned tomatoes, canned corn, canned peas, canned spinach leaves, canned mustard leaves, canned beans, canned lentils, canned pickles, canned gulabjamun, canned rassogolla; diary products, namely, cottage cheese, and khoya rasmalai (boiled milk solids); (Based on 44(e)) Processed beans; processed peas; lentils; pickles; dried fruits; fruit puips; vegetable oil for cooking; corn oil for food; processed nuts; snacks, namely, potato chips; canned legumes; canned foods, namely, canned tomatoes, canned corn, canned peas, canned spinach leaves, canned mustard leaves, canned beans, canned lentils, canned pickles, canned gulab jamun, canned rassogolla; diaryproducts, namely, cottage cheese, and khoya rasmalai (boiled milk solids) | ACTIVE | — |
| 030 | Flours; spices; bean flowers; cookies; sugar; rice; sauces; vegetable based pastes; vegetable based sauces; pappadums; processed wheat; jaggery; tea; coffee; peanut brittle; retort foods (ready to eat), namely, chana masala, Dal Makhani, sarsan ka saag, patra; snacks, namely, popcorn, sev, chevda, pun, khakava, ready to eat granola based food bars, ready to eat wheat based food bars, ready to eat rice based food bars, ready to eat fruit based food bars; frozen foods, namely, frozen yogurt, ready to eat frozen meals, frozen peas, frozen vegetable mix, frozen samosas, ice cream; processed cereals, namely, sorohum, millet, oats, barley, wheat, cracked wheat, and ready to eat cereal derived food bars; (Based on 44(e)) Flours, spices, bean flowers, cookies, sugar, rice, sauces, vegetable based pastes, vegetable based sauces, pappadams, processed wheat, jaggevy, tea, coffee, peanut brittle; retort foods (ready to eat), namely, chana masala, Dal Makhani, sarsan ka saag, patra; snacks, namely, popcorn, sev, chevda, pun, khakava, ready to eat granola based food bars, ready to eat wheat based food bars, ready to eat rice based food bars, ready to eat fruit based fruit bars; frozen foods, namely, frozen yogurt, ready to eat frozen meals, frozen peas, frozen vegetable mix, frozen samosas, ice cream; processed cereals, namely, sarohum, millet, oats, barley, wheat and cracked wheat and ready to eat cereal derived food bars | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 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. |
| May 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. |
| May 14, 2009 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 31, 2008 | 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. |
| Oct 30, 2008 | 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. |
| Oct 9, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 9, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 8, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 7, 2008 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 11, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 11, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 11, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 10, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 26, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 26, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 23, 2007 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 5, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 5, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 4, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| May 3, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 19, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 18, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 4, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 1, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 1, 2006 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 10, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 9, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 7, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 7, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 20, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 30, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 30, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 1, 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. |
| Jul 1, 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 30, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 14, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |