USPTO serial 77470170
FOOT-EEZ
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- PATE, TARA J
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 112 - 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 FOOT-EEZ?
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
Beeton, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Nicolas S. Gold
Nicolas S. Gold LAW OFFICES OF JAMES R. CYPHER409 13th Street, 11th FloorOakland, CA 94612UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Foot actuated hydraulic door opener and closer; Foot actuated pneumatic door opener and closer; Foot actuated mechanical door opener and closer | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 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. |
| Sep 29, 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. |
| Feb 6, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 6, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 6, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 11, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 23, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 23, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 23, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 13, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 13, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 8, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 16, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 24, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 3, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 3, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 30, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 20, 2010 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 3, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 3, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 3, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 16, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 1, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 1, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 1, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | GNEN | NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 29, 2008 | 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. |
| Aug 29, 2008 | 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. |
| Aug 29, 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. |
| Aug 26, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 14, 2008 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| May 13, 2008 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |