USPTO serial 78814442
DARE TO DREAM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STINE, DAVID
- 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 DARE TO DREAM?
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
Fort Qu'Appelle, SK, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Louis K. Ebling
LOUIS K EBLING GREENEBAUM DOLL & MCDONALD PLLC255 E 5TH STCINCINNATI, OH 45202-4700UNITED STATESGoods and services
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 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. |
| Jan 10, 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. |
| Jun 14, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 14, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 14, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 14, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 14, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 14, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 5, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 24, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 24, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 24, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 24, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 24, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 24, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 24, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 23, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 23, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 15, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 12, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 14, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 13, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 11, 2007 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 11, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 11, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 11, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 11, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 10, 2007 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 11, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 11, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 11, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 1, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 1, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 28, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 28, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 12, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 30, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 30, 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. |
| Aug 3, 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. |
| Aug 3, 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. |
| Aug 3, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 22, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |