USPTO serial 77845212
SAFE FLUSH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- REINHART, MEGHAN M
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 108 - 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 SAFE FLUSH?
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
Kingston, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Neal L. Slifkin
NEAL L. SLIFKIN HARRIS BEACH PLLC99 GARNSEY RD STE 1PITTSFORD, NY 14534-4596UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | Plumbing fixtures, namely, toilet overflow protection devices | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2014 | 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. |
| Apr 22, 2014 | 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 24, 2013 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 24, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 23, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 20, 2013 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 19, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 19, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 19, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 18, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 18, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 17, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 16, 2012 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 16, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 15, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 15, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 1, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 11, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 11, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 11, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 8, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 6, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 6, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 6, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 13, 2011 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 12, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 11, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 9, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 9, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 9, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 22, 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. |
| May 3, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 12, 2010 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2010 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 15, 2009 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Oct 13, 2009 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |