USPTO serial 78791175
KALEIDOCOLOR
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GOODMAN, WENDY BETH
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 109 - 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 KALEIDOCOLOR?
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.
D. Peter Hochberg
D PETER HOCHBERG D PETER HOCHBERG CO LPA1940 E 6TH ST 6TH FLCLEVELAND, OH 44114UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 028 | Activity toys, namely, a plastic drawing toy for children | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 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. |
| Nov 16, 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. |
| Apr 13, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 13, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 13, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 1, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 31, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 31, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 31, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 14, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 11, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 11, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 11, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 4, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 4, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 3, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 3, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 3, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 3, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 1, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 31, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 31, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 31, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 31, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 31, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 18, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 20, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 18, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 17, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 17, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 13, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 13, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 13, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 8, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 5, 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. |
| Jun 5, 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 24, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 19, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |