USPTO serial 76624751
PIGFACE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BUCHANAN WILL, NORA
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 PIGFACE?
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
Delta, British Columbia, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Regina M. Corrigan
REGINA M CORRIGAN GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP1400, 700 2ND ST SWCALGARY, AB T2P 4V5CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | CANDY; CHOCOLATE; CHOCOLATE COVERED NUTS; CHOCOLATE CANDIES; CHOCOLATES AND CHOCOLATE CANDIES WITH ALCOHOLIC FILLINGS; CHOCOLATE BARS; BAKERY GOODS, NAMELY, DANISHES, CAKES, PIES, SQUARES, TARTS, COOKIES, PASTRIES AND LOAVES | 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 25, 2010 | 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 23, 2010 | 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 24, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 23, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 17, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 17, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 16, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 16, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 11, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 12, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 20, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 18, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 15, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 28, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 28, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 25, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 29, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 28, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 28, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 24, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 11, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 11, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 7, 2007 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 11, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 9, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 24, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 21, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 20, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 18, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 20, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 8, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 8, 2006 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 8, 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. |
| Aug 6, 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 23, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 8, 2005 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 8, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 6, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |