USPTO serial 77513819
GRIDBOX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HAN, DAWN L
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 107 - 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 GRIDBOX?
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
North Vancouver, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Melissa L. Heywood
MELISSA L. HEYWOOD ACCUPRO TRADEMARK SERVICES LLP401 WEST GEORGIA STREETSUITE 702VANCOUVER; BRITISH COLUMB, V6B5A1Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Advertising, marketing and promotional services for others, namely, promoting the goods and services of others, preparing and placing advertisements for others, providing a web site that enables users to post items for sale through on-line classified advertisements, promoting the goods and services of others by distributing advertising materials through a variety of methods, and business consultation services in the field of marketing and advertising | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2013 | 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. |
| Apr 20, 2013 | 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. |
| Sep 6, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 5, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 4, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 30, 2012 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 27, 2012 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 27, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 16, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 10, 2011 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 3, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 1, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 1, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 21, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 21, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 21, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 21, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 14, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 14, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 8, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 8, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 17, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 17, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 15, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 23, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 23, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 10, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 8, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 8, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 20, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 20, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 19, 2009 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 18, 2009 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Oct 17, 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. |
| Oct 17, 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. |
| Oct 8, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 8, 2008 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Jul 7, 2008 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |