USPTO serial 78131549
INTELLI-CART
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STINE, DAVID
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 INTELLI-CART?
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.
Colleen F. Goss
COLLEEN F GOSS FAY, SHARPE, FAGAN, MINNICH & MCKEE1100 SUPERIOR AVESEVENTH FLCLEVELAND, OH 44114Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 012 | battery-powered remote controlled cart which runs inside high density pallet storage racks to deliver and retrieve pallets | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 3, 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. |
| Apr 3, 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. |
| Sep 6, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 6, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 6, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 30, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 24, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 9, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 9, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 3, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 17, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 17, 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. |
| Aug 24, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 24, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 11, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 1, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 1, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 31, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 2, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 2, 2004 | 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 1, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 18, 2003 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 9, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 30, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 30, 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. |
| May 31, 2003 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 30, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 24, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 25, 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. |
| Sep 24, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |