USPTO serial 77147590
CABRIER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- TOOLEY, DAVID E
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 112 - 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 CABRIER?
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
Road Town, Tortola, VG
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Mark N. Mutterperl
MARK N. MUTTERPERL FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.666 5TH AVE FL 30NEW YORK, NY 10103-3198UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 014 | Jewelry, precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments, watches, and clocks | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 16, 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. |
| Oct 16, 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. |
| Mar 20, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 19, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 1, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 1, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 30, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 29, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 10, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 9, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 9, 2007 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Jul 17, 2007 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Jul 16, 2007 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Jul 10, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 6, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |