USPTO serial 78301375
OFFSET
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MARTIN, EUGENIA K
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 OFFSET?
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.
Max Vern
MAX VERN AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN90 PARK AVENEW YORK, NY 10016UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 010 | SURGICAL, MEDICAL AND DENTAL INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS FOR PLACING OR FOR PREPARING THE PLACEMENT OF IMPLANTS IN BODY TISSUE; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; PROSTHESES, NAMELY HIP JOINT PROSTHESIS AND HIP JOINTS SHAFTS; ENDOPROTHESIS FOR THE HIP, SPINE, ELBOW AND KNEE, IN PARTICULAR SHAFTS AND SPHERICAL HEADS; IMPLANTS, IN PARTICULAR JOINT IMPLANTS AND IMPLANTS COVERED WITH COATING MATERIALS, DENTAL AND JAW IMPLANTS, ARTIFICIAL TEETH AND DENTURES AS WELL AS TOOTH PINS, ARTIFICIAL JAWS, SPINAL COLUMN IMPLANTS; ARTIFICIAL JOINTS, LIAGAMENTS, TENDONS; INSTRUMENTS AND TOOLS FOR THE IMPLANTATION OF PROSTHESIS AND PARTS OF PROSTHESIS AND ALSO FOR THE OPERATIVE TREATMENT OF FRACTURES; FIXATORS FOR BONES; PLATES; BONE SCREWS AND BONE NAILS, IMPLANTS IN THE NATURE OF PEDICLE SCREWS | 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 13, 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. |
| Jun 13, 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. |
| Nov 15, 2004 | 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. |
| Nov 15, 2004 | 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. |
| Sep 1, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 26, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 26, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 14, 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. |
| Apr 8, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 10, 2003 | 1.BD | Sec. 1(B) CLAIM DELETED | — |
| Oct 10, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 10, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |