USPTO serial 78595292
T-TECH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MICHOS, JOHN E
- 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 T-TECH?
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
Mississauga, Ontario, CA
Mississauga, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Howard J. Shire
Howard J. Shire Kenyon & Kenyon LLPOne BroadwayNew York, NY 10004UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | Food supplements for body building, strength and performance enhancement | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2008 | 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. |
| Aug 4, 2008 | 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. |
| Oct 6, 2007 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Sep 8, 2007 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Jul 2, 2007 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Jul 2, 2007 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Feb 20, 2007 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 2, 2007 | 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. |
| Oct 10, 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. |
| Sep 20, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Aug 29, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Aug 25, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 21, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Aug 18, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 17, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 17, 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. |
| Aug 17, 2006 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Aug 17, 2006 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Aug 17, 2006 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Mar 10, 2006 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Mar 10, 2006 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Mar 6, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 28, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 28, 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. |
| Aug 29, 2005 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-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. |
| Aug 29, 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. |
| Aug 29, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 30, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |