USPTO serial 78357771
RAVEN
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WATSON, JULIE A
- 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 RAVEN?
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
Accrington, Lancashire, GB
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Richard W. Young
Richard W. Young Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP191 N. Wacker DriveSuite 3700Chicago, IL 60606Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; satellite antennas and dishes; parts and fittings for the aforementioned products | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 24, 2007 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 9, 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. |
| Jul 9, 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. |
| Nov 21, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 21, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 6, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 21, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 3, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 8, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 8, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 5, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 16, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 16, 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. |
| Aug 17, 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. |
| Aug 17, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 4, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |