USPTO serial 77144934
BIOXO MOUSSE OXO-DEGRADABLE FOAM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- YAO, GRETTA
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 BIOXO MOUSSE OXO-DEGRADABLE FOAM?
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.
Harold L. Novick
HAROLD L. NOVICK THE NATH LAW GROUP112 S WEST STALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2825UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 016 | Polystyrene food containers comprised of materials designed to lessen adverse effects on the environment | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 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. |
| Aug 7, 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. |
| Dec 19, 2012 | 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. |
| Dec 19, 2012 | 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. |
| Nov 29, 2012 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Nov 29, 2012 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Nov 29, 2012 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 29, 2012 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 26, 2012 | 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 23, 2012 | 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. |
| Nov 14, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 14, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 14, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| May 15, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 15, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 24, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 19, 2011 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 28, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 28, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 27, 2011 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Mar 28, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 25, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 19, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 18, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 18, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 12, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 12, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 9, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 9, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 4, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 4, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 4, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 9, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 9, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 25, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 25, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 24, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 11, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 11, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 9, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 11, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 11, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 25, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 22, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 18, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 27, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 27, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 27, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 16, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 2, 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. |
| Jun 30, 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. |
| Jun 22, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 4, 2007 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Apr 3, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |