USPTO serial 78431080
CENTRAL WATER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CAPSHAW, DANIEL
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 110 - 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 CENTRAL WATER?
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.
JOHN A. CLIFFORD
JOHN A CLIFFORD MERCHANT & GOULD PCPO BOX 2910MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0910UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | Water filtration, water treatment, water conditioning, and water purification units for commercial, industrial and residential use | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 1, 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. |
| Aug 1, 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. |
| Dec 19, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 19, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 28, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 28, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 15, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 12, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 12, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 24, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 24, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 31, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 30, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 29, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 28, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 28, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 18, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 18, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 13, 2005 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2005 | 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. |
| Jan 7, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 14, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |