USPTO serial 78121318
HELIX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WHEATLEY, TRAVIS DWIGHT
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 HELIX?
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.
Michael J. Bevilacqua, Esquire
MICHAEL J BEVILACQUA ESQ HALE AND DORR LLP60 STATE STBOSTON, MA 02109UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | COMMAND LINE INTERFACE COMPUTER SOFTWARE | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2006 | 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. |
| Feb 24, 2006 | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 15, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 13, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 13, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 25, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 7, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 13, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 13, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 10, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 13, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 13, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 11, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Feb 13, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 27, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 20, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 25, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 25, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 5, 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. |
| Jul 29, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |