USPTO serial 78337763
WISCONSIN SPRINGS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KELLY, JOHN M
- Law office
- LAW OFFICE 117 - 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 WISCONSIN SPRINGS?
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.
Michael W. Vogel
STEPHEN C WERNER JR ROETHE KROHN POPE LLP321 E MILWAUKEE STJANESVILLE, WI 53545UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 032 | BOTTLED SPRING WATER FROM SPRINGS LOCATED IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN | ACTIVE | Jan 1, 1985 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28, 2012 | UNDN | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - NO ACTION TAKEN | — |
| Mar 6, 2012 | 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. |
| Mar 5, 2012 | 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. |
| Aug 8, 2011 | CFRC | SUBSEQUENT FINAL MAILED | — |
| Aug 8, 2011 | CFRC | SUBSEQUENT FINAL MAILED | — |
| Aug 6, 2011 | CFRC | SUBSEQUENT FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 7, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 4, 2011 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jul 2, 2010 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 22, 2009 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 22, 2009 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 22, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 22, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 22, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 18, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 22, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 17, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 17, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 29, 2005 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 28, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 28, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 27, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 3, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 3, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 31, 2005 | 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. |
| Mar 31, 2005 | 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. |
| Feb 10, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 10, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 24, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 18, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 18, 2005 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 22, 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. |
| Jun 24, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 5, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |