USPTO serial 77190429
NAUTILUS BY PROTEXION
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- JOINER, KATINA JACKSON
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 104 - 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 NAUTILUS BY PROTEXION?
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
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Scott E. Rogers
SCOTT E. ROGERS SCANDAGLIA & RYAN55 E MONROE ST STE 3930CHICAGO, IL 60603-5729UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | Foul weather gear; Caps; Pants; Vests; Jackets; Suits; Coveralls; Coats | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1, 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. |
| Dec 1, 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. |
| May 4, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 4, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 4, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 7, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 7, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 7, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 7, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 16, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 16, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 12, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 7, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 7, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 7, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 7, 2007 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 7, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 7, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 6, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 2, 2007 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Jun 1, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |