USPTO serial 78831333
GENFUND.COM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- REGAN, JOHN B
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - 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 GENFUND.COM?
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.
Jennifer C. Debrow
JENNIFER C DEBROW GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT PAPO BOX 2906MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0906UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 036 | Commercial finance services, namely, secured capital financing and operation of a website | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 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. |
| Apr 26, 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. |
| Sep 22, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 1, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 1, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 1, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 1, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 12, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 12, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 11, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 19, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 19, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 19, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 1, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 30, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 30, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 30, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 29, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 29, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 29, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 5, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 5, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 5, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 5, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 15, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 15, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 13, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 28, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 28, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 28, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 21, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 21, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 8, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 8, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 8, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 7, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 7, 2007 | 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 18, 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 18, 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 16, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 15, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |