USPTO serial 78801398
ICARE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KAUFMAN, LAURIE R
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 ICARE?
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.
Jeffrey A. Smith
JEFFREY A SMITH MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN PC2200 CLARENDON BLVD STE 1400ARLINGTON, VA 22201-3360UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Computer software to gather and interpret data from a casino management system in order to identify problem gamblers, notify casino operators when players are in the casino, provide casino staff with information regarding player behavior and track interaction between staff and players | 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 4, 2011 | 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 4, 2011 | 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 7, 2011 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 6, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 17, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 17, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 16, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 16, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 16, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 10, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 23, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 22, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 22, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 20, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 19, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 12, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 12, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 10, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 9, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 6, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 4, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 1, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 1, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 1, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 31, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 21, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 20, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 7, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 31, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 28, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 28, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 26, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 28, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 27, 2006 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Nov 27, 2006 | COAR | TEAS CHANGE OF OWNER ADDRESS RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 27, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 27, 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. |
| May 26, 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 26, 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 | — |
| Feb 2, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |