USPTO serial 78897508
COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGIES CONFERENCE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- POWERS, ALEXANDER L
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGIES CONFERENCE?
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
Manhasset, NY
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Susan L. Heller
SUSAN L HELLER GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP2450 COLORADO AVE STE 400ESANTA MONICA, CA 90404-5524UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Providing information online relating to exhibitions and conferences in the fields of business practice development, systems integration, business and information technology; arranging and conducting exhibitions and conferences in the fields of business practice development, systems integration, business and information technology | ACTIVE | Jun 19, 2005 |
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 24, 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. |
| Apr 24, 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. |
| Sep 26, 2006 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Sep 26, 2006 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Sep 20, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 6, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |