USPTO serial 78862431
RID-O-VIT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CARLYLE, SHAUNIA P
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 110 - 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 RID-O-VIT?
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.
Erik M. Pelton
ERIK M PELTON ERIK M PELTON, ATTORNEY AT LAWPO BOX 100637ARLINGTON, VA 22210UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 039 | Commercial waste services, namely, contract truck hauling; trash and recycling pickup, rental of dumpsters | ACTIVE | Mar 2, 1994 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 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. |
| Dec 16, 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. |
| May 18, 2009 | GNS1 | NOTIFICATION OF SUBSEQUENT FINAL EMAILED | — |
| May 18, 2009 | GNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED | — |
| May 18, 2009 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING A FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Apr 27, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 27, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 27, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 22, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 22, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 22, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 20, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 8, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 7, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 19, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 19, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 19, 2008 | ERFR | TEAS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 2, 2007 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Oct 2, 2007 | 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. |
| Oct 2, 2007 | CNFR | 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. |
| Sep 10, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 10, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 13, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 13, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 3, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 3, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 3, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 10, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 21, 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. |
| Sep 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. |
| Sep 21, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 20, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |