USPTO serial 78527889
THE ART AND SCIENCE OF INJECTABLE SOFT TISSUE ENGINEERING
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- YONTEF, DAVID ERIC
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE SECTION
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with THE ART AND SCIENCE OF INJECTABLE SOFT TISSUE ENGINEERING?
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.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
John C. Wilson
JOHN C WILSON HELLER EHRMAN LLP4350 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRSAN DIEGO, CA 92122UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 010 | Medical devices, accessories and preparations thereof, namely, injectable non-living tissue implants, and devices for implanting the aforesaid items | 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.
- Other trademarks owned by Artes Medical, Inc.
- Other trademarks owned by Artes Medical, Inc.
- Other trademarks in Class 010
- Similar marks named THE ART AND SCIENCE OF INJECTABLE SOFT TISSUE ENGINEERING
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2007 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| May 1, 2007 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Aug 29, 2006 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Jun 21, 2006 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Jun 21, 2006 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 6, 2006 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| May 17, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Apr 19, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Apr 7, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 6, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Apr 6, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 5, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 5, 2006 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Apr 5, 2006 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Apr 5, 2006 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 8, 2006 | 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. |
| Feb 8, 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. |
| Jul 13, 2005 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Jul 12, 2005 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Jul 11, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 15, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |