USPTO serial 77810093
EVERGREEN TUG TECHNOLOGY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CORDOVA, RAUL
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 EVERGREEN TUG TECHNOLOGY?
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
Saint John, NB, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Andrew S. Ehard
ANDREW S. EHARD MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.PO BOX 2910MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0910UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 039 | Ocean, harbor, terminal and marine towage services; Ship rescue services, Barge transport services of ships, goods and persons | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 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. |
| May 3, 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. |
| Sep 26, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 24, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 10, 2012 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 23, 2012 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 1, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 29, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 29, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 29, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 7, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 19, 2011 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 18, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 18, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 17, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 15, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 15, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 7, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 1, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 1, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 26, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 25, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 24, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 23, 2010 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 23, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 23, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 25, 2010 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 1, 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. |
| Nov 30, 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. |
| Nov 25, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 27, 2009 | TAEA | TEAS AMENDMENT ENTERED BEFORE ATTORNEY ASSIGNED | — |
| Aug 27, 2009 | PARI | TEAS VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 26, 2009 | MDSM | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Aug 25, 2009 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Aug 25, 2009 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |