USPTO serial 78920687
LORD STANLEY'S
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- PERKINS, ELLEN J
- 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 LORD STANLEY'S?
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.
Regina M. Corrigan
REGINA M CORRIGAN; GOWLING LAFLEUR HEND CALGARY; ABC - ALBERTAT2P 4V5STE 1400, 700 2ND ST SW,Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 032 | BREWED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, NAMELY, BEER; ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, NAMELY, BEER | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 2011 | 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. |
| Aug 24, 2011 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 12, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 11, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 11, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 11, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 9, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 9, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 9, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 18, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 20, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 20, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 20, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 20, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 20, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 20, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 20, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 20, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 19, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 21, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 21, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 21, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 19, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 19, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 19, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 19, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 19, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 19, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 19, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 3, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 3, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 3, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 2, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 21, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 7, 2007 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 7, 2007 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 9, 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. |
| Dec 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. |
| Dec 4, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 7, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |