USPTO serial 78337324
PRACTICOOL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RAUEN, JAMES
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 109 - 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 PRACTICOOL?
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.
Brent D. Sanders
JAMES L VANA PERKINS COIE LLP1201 3RD AVE STE 4800SEATTLE, WA 98101UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 031 | Fresh vegetables | 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 28, 2007 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Jan 4, 2007 | 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. |
| Jan 3, 2007 | 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 31, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 6, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 6, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 1, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 2, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 28, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 28, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 4, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 21, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 21, 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. |
| Jul 16, 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. |
| Jul 16, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 31, 2003 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |