USPTO serial 78744066
Serial No. 78744066
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- COWARD, KATHRYN E
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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. 78744066?
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
Mississauga, Ontario L4W 1G7, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Andrew S. Ehard
ANDREW S EHARD MERCHANT & GOULD PCPO BOX 2910MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0910UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 008 | Hand-held garden tools, namely, weeders, cultivators and edgers | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 18, 2008 | 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. |
| Aug 16, 2008 | 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. |
| Jan 7, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 4, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 29, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 5, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 29, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 27, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 27, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 25, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 25, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 26, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 26, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 10, 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. |
| May 9, 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. |
| May 3, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 20, 2006 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Nov 3, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |