USPTO serial 78781272
PETVIVA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STOIDES, KATHERINE
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 PETVIVA?
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
Su Zhou Glory Innovations Co., Ltd.
Su Zhou Industry Garden, CN
Other trademarks owned by Su Zhou Glory Innovations Co., Ltd.
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Alan D. Kamrath
ALAN D KAMRATH NIKOLAI & MERSEREAU PA900 2ND AVE S STE 820 INTERNATIONAL CTRMINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Import and export agency services for pet daily supplies; Pet business information services, namely, providing marketing and demographic data; Procurement services for others, namely, purchasing pet daily supplies and pet daily supplies parts for other businesses; and Retail services for pet daily supplies | 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 5, 2007 | 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 2, 2007 | 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 24, 2006 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Jun 24, 2006 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Jun 21, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 6, 2006 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Jan 5, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |