USPTO serial 78252233
SMART NITRATES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ZAK, HENRY
- Law office
- LAW OFFICE 117 - 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 SMART NITRATES?
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
Mississauga, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Veronica Colby Devitt
VERONICA COLBY DEVITT THELEN REID & PRIEST LLPPO BOX 190187SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94119-0187UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | Nitrate based Pharmaceutical preparations for human therapeutic purposes | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 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. |
| Dec 8, 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. |
| May 12, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 12, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 11, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 1, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 22, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 10, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 1, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 6, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 6, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 5, 2003 | 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. |
| Oct 22, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |