USPTO serial 78831413
LUBREASE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SCHRODY, ALLISON PAIGE
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 LUBREASE?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
John Alumit
JOHN ALUMIT PATEL & ALUMIT PC16830 VENTURA BLVD STE 360ENCINO, CA 91436UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | Medical lubricant, namely, vaginal lubricant; vaginal moisturizers; vaginal preparations, namely antifungal; vaginal washes | 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 7, 2008 | 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 7, 2008 | 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 1, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 1, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 1, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 21, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 21, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 7, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 7, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 2, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 2, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 20, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 23, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 23, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 23, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 15, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |