USPTO serial 78710270
Serial No. 78710270
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BROWN, TINA
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 Serial No. 78710270?
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
Lugano Paradiso, CH
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Scott J. Major
SCOTT J MAJOR MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN PC2200 CLARENDON BLVD STE 1400ARLINGTON, VA 22201-3360UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | Lighting apparatus and installations, namely, flashlights, lamp reflectors, lighting lamps, safety lamps, electric lamps, electric lanterns for lighting | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2010 | 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. |
| Feb 25, 2010 | 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. |
| Jul 29, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 29, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 29, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 17, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 16, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 16, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 16, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 16, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 16, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 15, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 23, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 27, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 27, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 20, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 18, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 8, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 8, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 7, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 7, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 4, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 2, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 2, 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. |
| Mar 30, 2006 | 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. |
| Mar 30, 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 22, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 21, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 7, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 26, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 26, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 24, 2005 | COAR | TEAS CHANGE OF OWNER ADDRESS RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 19, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |