USPTO serial 78275822
ZORRO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CASE, LEIGH CAROLINE
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 ZORRO?
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.
Timothy H. Hiebert
TIMOTHY H HIEBERT SAMUELS, GAUTHIER & STEVENS LLP225 FRANKLIN ST STE 3300BOSTON, MA 02110-2898UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Flat screen computer and video monitor arms | 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 28, 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. |
| Dec 28, 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. |
| Jun 1, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 1, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 31, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 18, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 18, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 5, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 30, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 30, 2004 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Oct 21, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 21, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 21, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 15, 2004 | EMRV | EMAIL RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 14, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 3, 2004 | 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. |
| Feb 2, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |