USPTO serial 78256865
HDV HIGH DEFINITION VISION
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HOFFMAN, DAVID AARON
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 107 - 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 HDV HIGH DEFINITION VISION?
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.
Ralph E. Locher
RALPH E LOCHER LERNER AND GREENBERG, PAPO BOX 2480HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | (Based on Section 1(b)) Marketing refractive and cataract surgical procedures of others, namely, providing business marketing consulting services, business marketing information, business marketing material, advertising material,promotional material and patient education material | ACTIVE | — |
| 044 | (Based on Section 1(b), 44(d) and (44(e)) Refractive and cataract surgery; (Based on Section 1(b)) providing information in the field of refractive and cataract surgical procedures for dissemination via the Internet | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 20, 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. |
| Jul 20, 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. |
| Dec 18, 2006 | 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. |
| Dec 18, 2006 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 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. |
| Nov 24, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 24, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 2, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 18, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 3, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 3, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 15, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 9, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 9, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 9, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 3, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 18, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 18, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 12, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 12, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jul 13, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 13, 2004 | EMRV | EMAIL RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 12, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 14, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 8, 2003 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Dec 5, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |