USPTO serial 77141444
MICROPLAST
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DOMBROW, COLLEEN M
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 MICROPLAST?
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
Montreal, Quebec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Jess M. Collen
JESS M. COLLEN COLLEN IP, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.80 SOUTH HIGHLAND AVENUETHE HOLYOKE-MANHATTAN BUILDINGOSSINING, NY 10562Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Press fabric for paper making 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 3, 2013 | 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 3, 2013 | 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. |
| Sep 5, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 5, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 5, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 5, 2012 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 5, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 5, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 23, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 23, 2011 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 22, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 19, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 17, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 16, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 14, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 14, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 4, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 4, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 3, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 3, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 3, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 2, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 22, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 22, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 20, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 21, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 29, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 29, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 29, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 10, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 10, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 9, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 23, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 11, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 11, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 11, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 29, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 29, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 8, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 10, 2007 | 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. |
| Jul 9, 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. |
| Jul 9, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 10, 2007 | AMPX | PRELIMINARY/VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT - ENTERED | — |
| May 10, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 18, 2007 | PARI | TEAS VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 31, 2007 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Mar 30, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |