USPTO serial 77738684
INFRARED HALOGEN OVEN
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- YONTEF, DAVID ERIC
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 INFRARED HALOGEN OVEN?
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.
Owner
Mt. Prospect, IL
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Nicholas S. Lee
NICHOLAS S. LEE EDWARD BISHOP & ASSOCIATES, LTD.1320 TOWER RDSCHAUMBURG, IL 60173-4309UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | Electric kitchen appliances, namely electric heat transfer ovens | ACTIVE | Dec 12, 2002 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2010 | 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. |
| Mar 12, 2010 | 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. |
| Aug 14, 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. |
| Aug 14, 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. |
| Aug 14, 2009 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Aug 13, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 29, 2009 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| May 29, 2009 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| May 28, 2009 | EAAU | TEAS AMENDMENT OF USE RECEIVED | — |
| May 20, 2009 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| May 20, 2009 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |