USPTO serial 77396805
POLYORGANIC
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CRAWFORD, MARY
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 POLYORGANIC?
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
Saint-Damien, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Frank J. Colucci
FRANK J. COLUCCI COLUCCI & UMANS218 E 50TH STNEW YORK, NY 10022-7681UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 020 | plastic storage containers of organic material for commercial and industrial use; plastic compost bins of organic material | ACTIVE | — |
| 021 | plastic storage containers of organic material for household or domestic use; plastic recycling bins of organic material for household use; garbage bins of organic material | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2012 | 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. |
| Aug 17, 2012 | 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. |
| Jan 20, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 19, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 19, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 18, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 30, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 30, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 29, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 4, 2011 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 3, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 22, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 18, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 18, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 16, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 17, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 16, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 16, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 15, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 27, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 27, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 21, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 5, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 4, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 16, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 16, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 2, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 7, 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. |
| Jan 6, 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. |
| Dec 1, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 1, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 25, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 17, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 2, 2008 | 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. |
| Jun 2, 2008 | 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. |
| May 27, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 21, 2008 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Feb 20, 2008 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |