USPTO serial 78818043
Serial No. 78818043
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WEBSTER, WILLIAM M
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 Serial No. 78818043?
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
Lincolnwood, IL
Lincolnwood, IL
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Allen J. Hoover
ALLEN J HOOVER WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER500 W MADISON ST STE 3800CHICAGO, IL 60661-2511UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 019 | nonmetallic building materials, namely, drywall-trimming strips | ACTIVE | Mar 31, 2008 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 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. |
| Aug 31, 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. |
| Jan 19, 2010 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Jan 19, 2010 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Jan 19, 2010 | CNFR | SU - FINAL REFUSAL - WRITTEN | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Jan 15, 2010 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jan 15, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 15, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 11, 2010 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 7, 2009 | UNDC | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - COURTESY COPY MAILED | — |
| Jul 7, 2009 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF 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. |
| Jul 7, 2009 | 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. |
| Jul 7, 2009 | CNRT | SU - 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. |
| Jun 19, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 19, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 19, 2009 | 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. |
| Jun 19, 2009 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jun 19, 2009 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 21, 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. |
| Apr 21, 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. |
| Sep 10, 2008 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF 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. |
| Sep 10, 2008 | 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. |
| Sep 10, 2008 | CNRT | SU - 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. |
| Jul 2, 2008 | SUPC | STATEMENT OF USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Jun 23, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 19, 2008 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Jan 25, 2008 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 26, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 18, 2007 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Sep 19, 2007 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 25, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 19, 2007 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Dec 19, 2006 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Sep 26, 2006 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| Sep 6, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Aug 14, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Aug 4, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 1, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jul 31, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 10, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 25, 2006 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Feb 24, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |
| Feb 22, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 22, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 22, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |