USPTO serial 77570660
WOODTOGO YOUR READY-TO-GO PROJECT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FLETCHER, TRACY L
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 WOODTOGO YOUR READY-TO-GO PROJECT?
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-Romuald, Quebec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Daniel J. Bourque
Daniel J. Bourque Bourque & Associates, P.A.835 HANOVER STSuite 301MANCHESTER, NH 03104-5401Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 019 | (Based on Intent to Use) Building materials, namely, wood boards for decks; Non-metal shingles; Wood boards; Wood moldings; Wood siding; Wood trim (Based on 44(d) Priority Application) Building materials, namely, wood boards for decks; Non-metal shingles; Wood boards; Wood moldings; Wood siding; Wood trim | 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 8, 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. |
| Oct 8, 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. |
| Mar 12, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 12, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 12, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 22, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 22, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 22, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 22, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 22, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 22, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 20, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 14, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 14, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 14, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 13, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 6, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 6, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 6, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 6, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 6, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 2, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 16, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 16, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 16, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 11, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 9, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 9, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 9, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 28, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 28, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 24, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 9, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 14, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 14, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 14, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 22, 2010 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Jun 22, 2010 | COAR | TEAS CHANGE OF OWNER ADDRESS RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 12, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 8, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 8, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 8, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 12, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 12, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 12, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 8, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 8, 2009 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 8, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 8, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 8, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 6, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 6, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 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. |
| Dec 18, 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. |
| Dec 18, 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. |
| Dec 18, 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. |
| Dec 17, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 20, 2008 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Sep 19, 2008 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |