USPTO serial 76691346
A.I. TECH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- COLEMAN, NICHOLAS A
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 A.I. TECH?
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
Katsushika-ku, Tokyo, JP
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
William F. Herbert
WILLIAM F. HERBERT Staas & Halsey LLP1201 NEW YORK AVE NW STE 700WASHINGTON, DC 20005-6129UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 028 | REMOTE-CONTROLLED TOY CARS, REMOTE CONTROLLERS FOR THE TOY CARS, TOY ELECTRONIC CIRCUITS AND ACCESSORIES THEREOF, SOLD AS A UNIT | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 21, 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. |
| Jan 21, 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. |
| Jan 21, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 8, 2009 | 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 8, 2009 | 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. |
| May 13, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 13, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 13, 2009 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 11, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 10, 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. |
| Nov 10, 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 24, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 29, 2008 | MAFR | APPLICATION FILING RECEIPT MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2008 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |