USPTO serial 78167859
WEIGHBOSS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CLARKE, NANCY
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 WEIGHBOSS?
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.
L. S. Van Landingham III
L S VAN LANDINGHAM III12921 BRIDGER DRGERMANTOWN, MD 20874UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Scales | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 25, 2007 | 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. |
| Sep 25, 2007 | 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 27, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 8, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 8, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 6, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 26, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 21, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Apr 4, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 4, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 10, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 11, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 11, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 23, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 19, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 6, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 28, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 15, 2003 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 2003 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 27, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |