USPTO serial 78272234
OPTIONS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LEIPZIG, MARC J
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 OPTIONS?
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
Incline Village, NV
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
MARGARET PLUMLY
PO BOX 750757LAS VEGAS, NV 89136UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | SHOES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2006 | UNDN | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - NO ACTION TAKEN | — |
| Aug 15, 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. |
| Aug 15, 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. |
| Jan 17, 2006 | 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. |
| Jan 16, 2006 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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. |
| Nov 22, 2005 | UNDN | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - NO ACTION TAKEN | — |
| Nov 14, 2005 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Nov 3, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 20, 2005 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Oct 20, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 2, 2005 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL 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. |
| May 13, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 12, 2005 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 16, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 16, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 28, 2005 | 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. |
| Jan 6, 2005 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Dec 15, 2004 | PETL | COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM PETITIONER | — |
| Dec 15, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 22, 2004 | PRIM | PETITION INQUIRY LETTER MAILED | — |
| Aug 16, 2004 | 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 12, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 26, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 26, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 26, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 13, 2004 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 24, 2003 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |