USPTO serial 78230302
IO INTEGRATED OFFICE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HOWARD, CHERYL L
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 IO INTEGRATED OFFICE?
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.
William H. Logsdon, Registration No. 22,132
WILLIAM H LOGSDON REGISTRATION NO 22 WEBB ZIESENHEIM LOGSDON ORKIN & HANSON700 KOPPERS BLDG 436 SEVENTH AVEPITTSBURGH PA, 15219 1818U.S. ARMYGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 020 | Office furniture | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 2005 | 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. |
| May 16, 2005 | 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. |
| Aug 27, 2004 | GECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 9, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 7, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 23, 2004 | 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. |
| Jan 8, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 31, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 28, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 28, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 10, 2003 | GNRU | DISAPPROVAL - AMENDMENT TO USE E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 10, 2003 | AAUD | AMENDMENT OF ALLEGED USE DISAPPROVED | — |
| Sep 5, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 24, 2003 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Jul 21, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 26, 2003 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Jun 26, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |