USPTO serial 78844857
HAYES SUPERCRIMP
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BRADLEY, EVELYN
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - 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 HAYES SUPERCRIMP?
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.
Eric S. Hyman
ERIC S HYMAN BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN12400 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 700LOS ANGELES, CA 90025-1040UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 008 | hand tools and hand operated implements, namely, multipurpose hand tool for applying crimps to wire, cutting wire, stripping insulation from insulated wire and staple pulling | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2007 | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 21, 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. |
| Dec 21, 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. |
| Nov 27, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 27, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 27, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 30, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 11, 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. |
| Sep 9, 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. |
| Sep 7, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 20, 2006 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Mar 29, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |