USPTO serial 78053905
MAGNUM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KOVALSKY, LAURA G
- 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 MAGNUM?
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
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Carter J. White
Carter J. White M-I L.L.C.5950 North Course DriveLegal Dept. - TrademarksHouston, TX 77072Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Industrial and commercial sifting machine parts, namely, replacement screens for sifting machines | ACTIVE | Feb 21, 2000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2008 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | 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. |
| Aug 25, 2008 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 14, 2004 | 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. |
| Dec 14, 2004 | 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. |
| Jun 11, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 18, 2004 | 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. |
| May 13, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 5, 2004 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Oct 1, 2003 | SUPC | STATEMENT OF USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Oct 1, 2003 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Sep 8, 2003 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Sep 4, 2003 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 4, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 29, 2003 | LSOU | LATE FILED STATEMENT OF USE | — |
| Aug 29, 2003 | LEXT | LATE FILED EXTENSION REQUEST | — |
| Aug 29, 2003 | EISU | TEAS STATEMENT OF USE RECEIVED | The applicant filed a Statement of Use with specimens showing the mark in actual commerce. The USPTO will review the filing for compliance. If accepted, the mark can proceed to registration; if deficient, the USPTO may issue a requirement or office action. |
| Aug 29, 2003 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Aug 11, 2003 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Aug 11, 2003 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Feb 11, 2003 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Jul 17, 2002 | ETOF | EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 18, 2002 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| May 29, 2002 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Apr 9, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Mar 18, 2002 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 4, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 30, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 30, 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. |
| Jul 25, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |