USPTO serial 78698730
THE GLASS COMPANY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SMIGA, HOWARD
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 THE GLASS COMPANY?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Charles T.J. Weigell
J ALLISON STRICKLAND FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU PC866 UNITED NATIONS PLZNEW YORK, NY 10017UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 021 | Unfinished glass for vehicle windows; household ware and kitchen utensils, namely, ladles, serving spoons, salad forks, salad thongs, cups, bowls, plates, goblets, drinking glasses, salad bowls, jars, jars for blenders, glass jugs and coffee pots; candle sticks of glass and crystal; plated glass; glass figurines; and glass ovenware for table and kitchen | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 19, 2012 | 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. |
| Jan 19, 2012 | 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. |
| Jun 23, 2011 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 22, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 26, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 24, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 24, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 23, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 23, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 18, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| May 18, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 18, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 17, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 17, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 10, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 10, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 2, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| May 1, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 1, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 24, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 24, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 24, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 13, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 13, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 31, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 1, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 1, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 5, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 5, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 3, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 2, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 31, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 31, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 30, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 18, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 18, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 16, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 16, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 13, 2006 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION 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. |
| Mar 12, 2006 | 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. |
| Mar 10, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 31, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |