USPTO serial 78641545
POWERPLAY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LEASER, ANDREW C
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 112 - 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 POWERPLAY?
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
Christopher Stewart Wine & Spirits Inc.
Delta, British Columbia, CA
Other trademarks owned by Christopher Stewart Wine & Spirits Inc.
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Regina M. Corrigan
REGINA M CORRIGAN GOWLING LAFLEUR HEND CALGARY, ALBERTAT2P 4V5STE 1400; 700 2ND ST SW,Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 032 | ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, NAMELY, BEER | 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 28, 2011 | 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 28, 2011 | 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 30, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 30, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 30, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 21, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 21, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 18, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 18, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 18, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 7, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 7, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 7, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 7, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 4, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 1, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 1, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 1, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 28, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 21, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 21, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 19, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 20, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 20, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 20, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 2, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 1, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 1, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 29, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 11, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 11, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 31, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 31, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 12, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 22, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 22, 2006 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 22, 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. |
| Dec 22, 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. |
| Dec 21, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 8, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |