USPTO serial 78415146
EZA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MICKLEBURGH, LINDA BOHANNON
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 EZA?
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.
Deena Levy Weinhouse
DEENA LEVY WEINHOUSE FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP745 5TH AVENEW YORK, NY 10151-0099UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 021 | Bakeware; serveware, namely teapots, creamers, sugar bowls, serving bowls, and serving dishes | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 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. |
| Oct 6, 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. |
| Mar 9, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 9, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 23, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 20, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 1, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 1, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 31, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 22, 2007 | UNDN | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - NO ACTION TAKEN | — |
| Jul 27, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 26, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 18, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 18, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 18, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 4, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 24, 2007 | UNDC | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - COURTESY COPY MAILED | — |
| Dec 6, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 6, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 17, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 9, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 19, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 28, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 12, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 12, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 21, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 13, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 13, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 13, 2004 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION 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. |
| Dec 13, 2004 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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. |
| Dec 7, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 14, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |