USPTO serial 76624431
MAGIC BUMPER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WHITTAKER BROWN, TRACY
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 111 - 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 MAGIC BUMPER?
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
NISSAN JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA
YOKOHAMA-SHI. KANAGAWA-KEN, JP
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Micol Cecchi
Micol Cecchi Nissan North America, Inc.333 Commerce StreetLegal Department, B7-K2Nashville, TN 37201Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 012 | Driver safety support system comprising an electric motor, brake actuator, laser radar and camera for use in detecting hazardous driving conditions | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2007 | 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 1, 2007 | 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. |
| Jul 26, 2007 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Jul 26, 2007 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 1, 2007 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Feb 1, 2007 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Jan 11, 2007 | RGRR | REINSTATEMENT GRANTED - RESPONSE RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 24, 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. |
| Sep 15, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 11, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 11, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 2, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 3, 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. |
| Mar 2, 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 10, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 25, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 25, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 26, 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 25, 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. |
| Jul 18, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 5, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |