USPTO serial 78106289
PURTRAK
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BROWN, BARBARA TROFFKIN
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 PURTRAK?
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.
Robert W. Sacoff
ROBERT W SACOFF PATTISHALL MCAULIFFE NEWBURY & ET AL311 S WACKER DR STE 5000CHICAGO, IL 60606UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | customized agricultural system comprising integrated computer hardware and computer software for identifying, tracking, monitoring and reporting the status of animals, livestock, plants and farm products from the farm to the processor and finally to the end user | ACTIVE | — |
| 035 | custom design of computer systems for others, namely, customized agricultural system comprising integrated computer hardware and computer software for identifying, tracking, monitoring and reporting the status of animals, livestock, plants and farm products from the farm to the processor and finally to the end user | 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 18, 2008 | 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 18, 2008 | 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 21, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 21, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 21, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 7, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 7, 2007 | 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 17, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 17, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 17, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 17, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 16, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 6, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 6, 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. |
| May 16, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 16, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 16, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| May 16, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 16, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 13, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 9, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 9, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 26, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 26, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 25, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 25, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 25, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 12, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 12, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 2, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 6, 2003 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 22, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 9, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 9, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 10, 2003 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 27, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 7, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 6, 2002 | 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. |
| May 16, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |