USPTO serial 78423664
BUILD-A-BEAN
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- YAO, GRETTA
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 BUILD-A-BEAN?
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.
Michael T. Murphy
MICHAEL T MURPHY BELL, BOYD & LLOYD LLCPO BOX 1135CHICAGO, IL 60690-1135UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 020 | Self-built children's furniture | 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 16, 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. |
| Nov 16, 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. |
| Apr 17, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 17, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 28, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 21, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 21, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 20, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 20, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 17, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 17, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 16, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 25, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 25, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 24, 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 24, 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 23, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 1, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |