USPTO serial 78553689
HABITAT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- PEREZ, STEVEN M
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 HABITAT?
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.
Nancy Sabarra
SUSAN UPTON DOUGLASS FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU PC866 UNITED NATIONS PLZNEW YORK, NY 10017-1822UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Retail store services featuring live fish for food purposes and fish for food purposes | 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 2, 2009 | 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 1, 2009 | 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. |
| Jun 5, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 5, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 4, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 4, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| May 30, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 29, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 29, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 29, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 29, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 11, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 20, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 18, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 26, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 10, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 8, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 1, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 21, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 21, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 25, 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. |
| Aug 25, 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. |
| Aug 23, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 3, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |