USPTO serial 78630230
SOLVIT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DAHLING, KRISTIN M
- 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 SOLVIT?
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
Markham, Ontario, CA
Markham, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Stephen B. Salai
STEPHEN B SALAI HARTER, SECREST & EMERY LLP1600 BAUSCH & LOMB PLROCHESTER, NY 14604-2711UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 012 | Automobile parts and automobile accessories, namely wheels, seat covers, windshield wiper blades, steering wheels and covers, alarm systems, and brake rotors | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 26, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 6, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 5, 2006 | 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 24, 2006 | ETOP | EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE PROCESS - TERMINATED | — |
| Jun 23, 2006 | ETOF | EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE RECEIVED | — |
| May 30, 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. |
| May 10, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Apr 10, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Apr 4, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 13, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Mar 6, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 6, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 6, 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. |
| Jan 12, 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. |
| Jan 12, 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. |
| Jan 4, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 22, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 22, 2005 | 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. |
| Dec 20, 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. |
| Dec 20, 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. |
| Dec 12, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 24, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |