USPTO serial 77551799
LET'S TALK TOYS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LORENZO, KATHLEEN H
- 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 LET'S TALK TOYS?
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
Toronto Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Edward M. Weisz
EDWARD M. WEISZ Cozen O'Connor277 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10172UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Retail sale of toys, games and playthings; promotion to others of toys, games and playthings; consultation and research in the field of product development performance and consumer perception and interaction; conducting focus groups and studies in the field of toys, games and playthings | 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 22, 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. |
| Nov 22, 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. |
| Jul 25, 2011 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 26, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 26, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 26, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 25, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 24, 2010 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 18, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 9, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 9, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 21, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 21, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 21, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 10, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 9, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 9, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 9, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 8, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 8, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 6, 2009 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 6, 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 15, 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. |
| Oct 15, 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. |
| Oct 15, 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 9, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 26, 2008 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Aug 25, 2008 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |