USPTO serial 78590479
EX AEQUO TECHNOLOGIES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FINE, STEVEN
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 110 - 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 EX AEQUO TECHNOLOGIES?
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.
Donna J. Bunton
DONNA J BUNTON NIXON & VANDERHYE PC1100 N GLEBE RD FL 8ARLINGTON, VA 22201-5798UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | electronic thermostats and timers for use on swimming pool motors and garden lighting systems | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 29, 2008 | 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 28, 2008 | 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 30, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 30, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 30, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 10, 2007 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 5, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 30, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 16, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 16, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 15, 2006 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Jun 9, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 5, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| May 12, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 18, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 18, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 19, 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. |
| Oct 19, 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. |
| Oct 11, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 23, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |