USPTO serial 78494922
OIL VAULT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BURNS, ELLEN
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 OIL VAULT?
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.
Jeffrey A. Smith
JEFFREY A SMITH MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN PC2200 CLARENDON BLVD STE 1400ARLINGTON, VA 22201-3360UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 002 | Corrosion resistant protective coatings for storage tanks | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 19, 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. |
| Jan 19, 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. |
| May 23, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 22, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 19, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 16, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| May 16, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 13, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 9, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 9, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 14, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |