USPTO serial 76695299
FARIA WATCH DOG
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SOMERVILLE, ARETHA CHARESE
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 107 - 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 FARIA WATCH DOG?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Peter L. Costas
PETER L. COSTAS Pepe & Hazard LLP225 ASYLUM STHARTFORD, CT 06103-1516UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND EQUIPMENT FOR REPORTING GLOBAL POSITIONING OF VEHICLES AND VESSELS, NAMELY, MOBILE TRANSMITTERS, ELECTRIC LUMINESCENT DISPLAY AND OTHER PANELS, ANTENNAS, MOUNTS FOR GLOBAL POSITIONING DEVICES, ELECTRIC CABLES AND USER INTERFACES | ACTIVE | Mar 1, 2006 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18, 2016 | 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. |
| Apr 17, 2016 | 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 28, 2015 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Sep 18, 2015 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2015 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING A FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Aug 20, 2015 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 19, 2015 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 14, 2014 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 13, 2014 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 8, 2013 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 30, 2013 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 3, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 29, 2012 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 17, 2011 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 17, 2011 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 30, 2010 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| May 28, 2010 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| May 28, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 20, 2009 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| May 18, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 16, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 15, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 15, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 15, 2009 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| May 15, 2009 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| May 8, 2009 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| May 7, 2009 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Apr 10, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 10, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 10, 2009 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 9, 2009 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 3, 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. |
| Apr 3, 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. |
| Mar 26, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 27, 2009 | MAFR | APPLICATION FILING RECEIPT MAILED | — |
| Jan 22, 2009 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |