USPTO serial 77627712
EQUI-LUX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SALEMI, DOMINICK
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 EQUI-LUX?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Jonathan Hyman
JONATHAN HYMAN KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP2040 MAIN STREET, 14TH FLOORIRVINE, CA 92614-3641UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | Plastic injection molded parts used as part of a lighting fixture to diffuse light | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 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 4, 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 7, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 7, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 7, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 5, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 4, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 4, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 4, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 3, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 3, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 22, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 28, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 28, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 28, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 26, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 26, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 26, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 25, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 25, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 18, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 3, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 19, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 19, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 19, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 19, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 19, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 19, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 19, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 19, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 18, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 18, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 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. |
| Mar 12, 2009 | 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. |
| Mar 12, 2009 | 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. |
| Mar 12, 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. |
| Mar 4, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 9, 2008 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |