USPTO serial 78578590
XTALK
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- TURNER, JASON FITZGERALD
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 108 - 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 XTALK?
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
Richmond Hill, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Monte L. Falcoff
MONTE L FALCOFF HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE PLCPO BOX 828BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303-0828UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Computer software performing self-service speech applications that recognize user voice commands, namely, speech recognition software | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 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. |
| Jul 6, 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 6, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 6, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 2, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 21, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 21, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 31, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 27, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 27, 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. |
| Sep 28, 2005 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Sep 28, 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. |
| Sep 22, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 9, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |