USPTO serial 77175877
ULTRALIPO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LAVACHE, LINDA M
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 ULTRALIPO?
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
Beverly Hills, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
David Hochman
DAVID HOCHMAN WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO & SCHULMAN, LLP11400 W OLYMPIC BLVD FL 9LOS ANGELES, CA 90064-1550UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 044 | Non-invasive and minimally invasive cosmetic body service, namely, body contouring by means of ultrasound acoustic waves and micro-injections for the purpose of reduction, minimizing, and / or elimination of cellulite, adipose tissue, and appearance of fat tissue on body and face | ACTIVE | Apr 23, 2007 |
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 14, 2009 | 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 14, 2009 | 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 16, 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. |
| Mar 14, 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 9, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 4, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 4, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 4, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 4, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 4, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 21, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 12, 2007 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| May 11, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |