USPTO serial 77004828
I GRINDER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HINES, REGINA C
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 I GRINDER?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
D. Bruce Prout
D BRUCE PROUT CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE LLPPO BOX 7068PASADENA, CA 91109-7068UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | MACHINING CENTERS; MILLING MACHINES FOR METAL WORKING; NUMERICAL CONTROL MILLING MACHINES FOR METAL WORKING; GRINDING MACHINES FOR METAL WORKING; NUMERICAL CONTROL GRINDING MACHINES FOR METAL WORKING; METAL WORKING MACHINES | 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 23, 2008 | 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 23, 2008 | 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. |
| Feb 26, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 9, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 3, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 3, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 1, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 1, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 1, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 3, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 14, 2007 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Feb 14, 2007 | 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 9, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 27, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |