USPTO serial 78864428
PROTI-PUFFS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SMITH, BRIDGETT G
- 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 PROTI-PUFFS?
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 H. Weber
JOHN H. WEBER BAKER & HOSTETLER LLPWASH., SQ., 1050 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W.SUITE 1100WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304Goods and services
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 1, 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. |
| Apr 1, 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. |
| Aug 25, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 25, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 25, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 25, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 25, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 25, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 24, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 24, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 23, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 30, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 30, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 30, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 29, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 29, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 27, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 27, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 27, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 23, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 8, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 8, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 8, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 8, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 8, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 7, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 7, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 12, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 12, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 26, 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 26, 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 25, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 26, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |