USPTO serial 78751397
CRASH PAD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CORDOVA, RAUL
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 CRASH PAD?
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.
Cynthia J. Ledgley
Cynthia Ledgley LEDGLEY LAW724 ANNETTE STREETTORONTO, ONTARIO, M6S2E2CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 019 | Architectural wall systems primarily composed of rubber and supported by structural steel | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 5, 2010 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| May 26, 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. |
| May 26, 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 21, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 21, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 21, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 21, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 21, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 25, 2008 | MREI | NOTICE OF REINSTATEMENT MAILED | — |
| 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 18, 2008 | RGRR | REINSTATEMENT GRANTED - RESPONSE RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 9, 2008 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 20, 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. |
| Feb 20, 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 23, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 23, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 23, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 12, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 23, 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. |
| Nov 23, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| May 23, 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. |
| May 23, 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 16, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 16, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |