USPTO serial 78100693
ELOS DERMAL RENEWAL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- NADELMAN, ANDREA KOYNER
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE UNIT
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with ELOS DERMAL RENEWAL?
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
RICHMOND HILL, ONTARIO, CA
RICHMOND HILL, ONTARIO, CA
Toronto, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Clifford S. Goldfarb
CLIFFORD S GOLDFARB GARDINER ROBERTS LLPSCOTIA PLZ STE 310040 KING ST WTORONTO, ON M5H 3Y2Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 010 | Medical and aesthetic devices for performing hair removal and skin renewal using electrical and optical energy | 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.
- Other trademarks owned by SYNERON CANDA CORPORATION
- Other trademarks owned by SYNERON CANDA CORPORATION
- Other trademarks owned by Syneron Inc.
- Other trademarks in Class 010
- Similar marks named ELOS DERMAL RENEWAL
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 28, 2005 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - 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. |
| Jan 28, 2005 | 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. |
| Jun 22, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Mar 16, 2004 | 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. |
| Dec 23, 2003 | 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. |
| Dec 3, 2003 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Oct 22, 2003 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Oct 15, 2003 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 24, 2003 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jun 16, 2003 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 16, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 16, 2003 | 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. |
| May 13, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 21, 2002 | 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. |
| Sep 11, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 8, 2002 | 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. |
| Apr 5, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |