USPTO serial 78035345
CAREPAC
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CRAWFORD, MARY
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 CAREPAC?
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.
Catherine J. Holland
CATHERINE J HOLLAND KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR LLP2040 MAIN ST 14TH FLIRVINE, CA 92614UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | Pharmaceuticals, namely, dispensers containing pharmaceutical preparations, namely, contraceptives, pharmaceuticals for the treatment of osteoporosis, rehabilitative medications, antibiotics, anticoagulants, antidepressants, antivirals, cardiovascular pharmaceuticals, hormone supplements, pharmaceuticals for the treatment of the kidneys and pharmaceuticals for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2009 | 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. |
| Jun 18, 2009 | 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. |
| Nov 20, 2008 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Nov 20, 2008 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Nov 20, 2008 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Nov 3, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 3, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 3, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 18, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 18, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 18, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 14, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 12, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 31, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 31, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 18, 2007 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 5, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 5, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 5, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 4, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 4, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 14, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 14, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 14, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 20, 2006 | 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. |
| Jun 8, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 8, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 8, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 8, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 7, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 30, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 30, 2005 | 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. |
| Jun 9, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 9, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 3, 2005 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jun 3, 2005 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| May 26, 2005 | 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 26, 2005 | 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. |
| Oct 27, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 27, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 27, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 25, 2003 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 6, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Aug 6, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 6, 2003 | 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. |
| Mar 7, 2003 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 2, 2002 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 20, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 19, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 19, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 18, 2001 | 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. |
| Apr 11, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |