USPTO serial 77290508
TIK-A-PLAN
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FINK, GINA M
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 109 - 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 TIK-A-PLAN?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Henry B. Ward, III
HENRY B. WARD, III MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLCPOST OFFICE BOX 13706430 DAVIS DRIVE, SUITE 500RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 016 | information for drivers regarding traffic offenses in the form of books, booklets, pre-recorded CDs and pre-recorded DVDs | ACTIVE | — |
| 041 | educational services, namely, conducting information sessions, seminars, workshops, classes, conferences, and lectures for educating and informing drivers about traffic offenses | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1, 2011 | 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 31, 2011 | 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 28, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 28, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 28, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 28, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 28, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 28, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 27, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 27, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 27, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 30, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 30, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 30, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 18, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 19, 2009 | PGRR | PETITION GRANTED - RESPONSE RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 18, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 18, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 18, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 17, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 17, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 17, 2009 | APET | ASSIGNED TO PETITION STAFF | — |
| Sep 8, 2009 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 8, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 15, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 23, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 23, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 23, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 11, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 11, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 11, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 11, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 8, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 8, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 8, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 7, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 31, 2007 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-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 31, 2007 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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 31, 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. |
| Dec 31, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 3, 2007 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Oct 2, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |