USPTO serial 77833149
ECO-SYSTEM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SEVERSON, KAREN
- Law office
- LAW OFFICE 117 - 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 ECO-SYSTEM?
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.
Howard N. Aronson
HOWARD N. ARONSON LACKENBACH SIEGEL LLP1 CHASE RDSCARSDALE, NY 10583-4156UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Multiple compressor system comprised of air compressors, refrigerator compressors, compressors for dehumidifying machines for refrigeration, heating, ventilation, dehumidification of commercial establishments | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 15, 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. |
| Jul 15, 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. |
| Dec 11, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 11, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 11, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 5, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 5, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 5, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 5, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 24, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 24, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 14, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 15, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 15, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 15, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 24, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 22, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 22, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 22, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 21, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 21, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 18, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 20, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 20, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 20, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 20, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 2, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 2, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 2, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 15, 2010 | 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 23, 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. |
| Dec 23, 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. |
| Dec 23, 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. |
| Dec 20, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 29, 2009 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Sep 26, 2009 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |