USPTO serial 76644492
VICTOR & DELANO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FOSDICK, GEOFFREY A
- 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 VICTOR & DELANO?
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
Saint-Laurent, Quebec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
GEORGE W. LEWIS
GEORGE W LEWIS JACOBSON HOLMAN PLLCTHE JENIFER BLDG400 7TH ST NWWASHINGTON, DC 20004-2201Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | LADIES' WEARING APPAREL, NAMELY, DRESSES, SKIRTS, SLACKS, SUITS, PANTSUITS, SHORTS, CULOTTES, BLOUSES, SHIRTS, VESTS, JACKETS, BLAZERS AND SWEATERS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 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 28, 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. |
| Oct 30, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 29, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 21, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 18, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 17, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 17, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 10, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 10, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 12, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 11, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 11, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 10, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 9, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 9, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 6, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 6, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 6, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 5, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 1, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 28, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 28, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 17, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |