USPTO serial 78416761
OCEAN SELECTION
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SNYDER, NELSON B
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 107 - 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 OCEAN SELECTION?
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.
David Abraham Silverman
DAVID ABRAHAM SILVERMAN SILVERMAN & SILVERMAN LLP5075 YONGE ST STE 301TORONTO ONC, ON M2N 6C6CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | Frozen seafood-namely, fish steaks, fillets of fish, scallops, shrimp, seafood entrees | 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 5, 2006 | 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. |
| Sep 19, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 11, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 11, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 4, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 4, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 11, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 11, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 11, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 20, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 15, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 15, 2005 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 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. |
| Dec 17, 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 9, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 18, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |