USPTO serial 78276874
SHOP SMART-SHOP SAFE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BRACEY, KAREN
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 SHOP SMART-SHOP SAFE?
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
Oakville, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Mar B. Eisen
MAR B EISEN DIMOCK STRATTON CLARIZIO L TORONTO; ONC - ONTARIOM5H 3R3STE 3202 BOX 102 20 QUEEN ST WES,Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | debit cards, magnetically coded; bank cards, magnetically coded; automated teller machine cards, magnetically coded; Internet credit cards, magnetically coded; Internet debit cards, magnetically coded; credit cards, magnetically coded | ACTIVE | — |
| 036 | credit card services; credit services, namely, extending credit in Internet transactions based on buyer authentication; debit card services; electronic debit transaction services;commercial and consumer lending services; financial clearing house services; banking services including financial and foreign currency exchange services; and credit inquiry and consultation services | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2008 | 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. |
| Jun 11, 2008 | 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. |
| Oct 26, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 26, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 26, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 17, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 16, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 16, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 29, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 29, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 29, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 22, 2007 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 23, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 23, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 21, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 21, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 9, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 2, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 2, 2006 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 8, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 8, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 8, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 12, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 3, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 3, 2004 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| 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. |
| Jan 29, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |