USPTO serial 77623030
100 GREEN MILES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BOONE, JOHN C
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 104 - 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 100 GREEN MILES?
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.
THOMAS N YOUNG
THOMAS N YOUNG YOUNG BASILE HANLON & MacFARLANE PC3001 W Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 624Troy, MI 48084UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | Cheese; cheese by-products, namely, cheese powder; meats; meat by-products, namely, edible animal fat; fish; fish by-products, namely, stock; canned, dried and processed vegetables; vegetable by-products, namely, vegetable oil; canned, dried and processed fruit; fruit by-products, namely, jams and jellies; oil, namely, vegetable oil, salad oil, edible oil; fruit preserves | ACTIVE | — |
| 030 | Crackers; bread; honey; vinegar; pasta; rice; fish by-products, namely, fish sauce | 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 28, 2016 | 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 28, 2016 | 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. |
| May 2, 2016 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 2, 2016 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 2, 2016 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 22, 2016 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 20, 2015 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 20, 2015 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 20, 2015 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 20, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 20, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 13, 2015 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 13, 2015 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 13, 2015 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 13, 2015 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 13, 2015 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 1, 2014 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 1, 2014 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 1, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 1, 2014 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 1, 2014 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 24, 2014 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 25, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 25, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 25, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 24, 2014 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 9, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 9, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 9, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 6, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 16, 2013 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 18, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 18, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 18, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 14, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 14, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 12, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 17, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 17, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 17, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 28, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 22, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 22, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 22, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 16, 2012 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 1, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 6, 2011 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 6, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 3, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 1, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 1, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 1, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 1, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 1, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 1, 2010 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 1, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 1, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 31, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 29, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 28, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 27, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 27, 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. |
| Feb 27, 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. |
| Feb 26, 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. |
| Feb 26, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 1, 2008 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |