USPTO serial 77900836
ROTADRAFT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WOOD, CAROLINE
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 110 - 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 ROTADRAFT?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Daryl W Schnurr
295 HAGEY BLVD.WATERLOO, ON, N2L6R5CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | Charcoal barbecues and charcoal grills | 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 30, 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. |
| Jul 30, 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. |
| Dec 30, 2013 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 29, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 11, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 11, 2013 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 10, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 4, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 4, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 27, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 27, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 27, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 14, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 14, 2012 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 12, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 26, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 26, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 18, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 18, 2011 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 18, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 30, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 29, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 29, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 17, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 17, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 7, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 9, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 27, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 27, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 24, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 23, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 12, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 31, 2009 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |