USPTO serial 78519251
BIG Z
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- EISINGER, REBECCA MILES
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 BIG Z?
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
DEINZE, BE
Tiong Bahru Post Office, SG
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Kenneth L. Myer
KENNETH L MYER SHORT CRESSMAN & BURGESS PLLC999 3RD AVE STE 3000SEATTLE, WA 98104-4088UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 032 | Carbonated soft drinks | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 26, 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. |
| Sep 26, 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. |
| Feb 27, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 22, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 6, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 6, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 26, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 21, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 20, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 20, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 13, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 13, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 24, 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. |
| Jun 23, 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. |
| Jun 23, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 29, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |