USPTO serial 78654924
FLEXIMUM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- REGAN, JOHN B
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - 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 FLEXIMUM?
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
Saint-Ephrem, Beauce, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Frank P. Presta, Esq.
FRANK P PRESTA ESQ NIXON & VANDERHYE PC901 N GLEBE RD FL 11ARLINGTON, VA 22203-1808UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 019 | architectural, institutional and commercial wood doors and windows | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 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. |
| Jun 4, 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. |
| Oct 30, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 30, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 30, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 27, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 21, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 21, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 21, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 2, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 2, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 1, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 2, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 2, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 2, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 13, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 6, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 26, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 26, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 26, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 29, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 1, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 1, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 28, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 18, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 18, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 12, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 24, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |