USPTO serial 78290626
STRATOCAPTURE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SWAIN, MICHELE LYNN
- 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 STRATOCAPTURE?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
John A. Clifford
JOHN A CLIFFORD MERCHANT & GOULD PCPO BOX 2910MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0910UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | Cellular components, namely, oil bodies cells, oil body cellular proteins, proteins, fusion proteins, oil body associated cellular proteins and recombinant proteins extracted from living organisms, namely, plants, plant seeds, yeast and bacteria, all for use as an ingredient in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, foods, and ingredients for foods | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2009 | 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. |
| Nov 23, 2009 | 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. |
| Apr 14, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 14, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 14, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 8, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 8, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 8, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 8, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 21, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 21, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 19, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 10, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 10, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 10, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 20, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 19, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 8, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 26, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 12, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 12, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 12, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 18, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 1, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 1, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 10, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 10, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 10, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 20, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 8, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 8, 2005 | 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. |
| Nov 18, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 18, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 17, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 11, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 11, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 26, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 26, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 22, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 22, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 17, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 30, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 30, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 8, 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. |
| Mar 3, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |