USPTO serial 77220253
PEOPLE PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KUNG, KAELIE ELIZABETH
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 PEOPLE PROCESS TECHNOLOGY?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Mark C. Comtois
MARK C. COMTOIS DUANE MORRIS LLP1667 K STREET, N.W.SUITE 700WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1654Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING SERVICES, NAMELY, COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ASSESSMENTS IN THE FIELD OF DEMAND PLANNING AND FORECASTING, LOGISTICS, SUPPLY CHAIN PLANNING AND SUPPLY PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, CAPACITY PLANNING, PRODUCTION PLANNING, SCHEDULING AND BUSINESS OPTIMIZATION PROCESSES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2009 | MAB0 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - INCOMPLETE RESPONSE | — |
| Jan 9, 2009 | ABN0 | ABANDONMENT - INCOMPLETE RESPONSE | — |
| Dec 4, 2008 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Dec 3, 2008 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Nov 17, 2008 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 17, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 20, 2008 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| May 19, 2008 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Apr 16, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 16, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 12, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 10, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 12, 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. |
| Oct 11, 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. |
| Oct 2, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 5, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |