USPTO serial 78867925
INTELLIMAX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WELLS, CHRISTOPHER
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 INTELLIMAX?
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.
James M. Slattery
JAMES M. SLATTERY BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH LLPP.O. BOX 747FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Pump jack | 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 5, 2013 | 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 5, 2013 | 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 7, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 7, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 7, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 6, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 5, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 5, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 5, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 4, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 4, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 4, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 5, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 5, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 5, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 24, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 23, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 23, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| May 25, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 25, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 25, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 18, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 18, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 18, 2010 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 16, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 15, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 15, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| May 12, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 12, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 12, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 9, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 9, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 9, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 4, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 4, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 29, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 30, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 30, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 30, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 28, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 27, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 27, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 27, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 25, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 25, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 23, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| May 27, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 27, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 27, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 16, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 16, 2007 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 16, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 16, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 26, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 26, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 26, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 20, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 4, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 4, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 26, 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. |
| Sep 27, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 27, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 26, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 28, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |