USPTO serial 78604709
PLAY-WELL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KEAM, ALEX S
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 PLAY-WELL?
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.
James E. Brunton
JAMES E BRUNTON BRUNTON & JAGGER700 N BRAND BLVD STE 430GLENDALE, CA 91203-4277UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 028 | Play equipment, namely, swing sets, backyard playhouses, tree houses, play forts | ACTIVE | Mar 1, 1962 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 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. |
| May 6, 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. |
| Sep 25, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 20, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 20, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 20, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 29, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 14, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 14, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 23, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 23, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 16, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 19, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 19, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 3, 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. |
| Nov 3, 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. |
| Nov 2, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 15, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |