USPTO serial 78927613
SACRO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- NEVILLE, BRIAN
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 SACRO?
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
Guadalajara, Jalisco, MX
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Kevin G. Smith
KEVIN G SMITH SUGHRUE MION PLLC2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW STE 800WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 033 | Tequila | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30, 2012 | 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. |
| Mar 30, 2012 | 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 30, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 30, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 30, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 21, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 16, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 14, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 14, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 14, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 15, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 15, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 15, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 21, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 21, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 21, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 21, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 15, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 15, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 15, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 16, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 16, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 16, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 22, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 20, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 20, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 20, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 17, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 17, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 17, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 9, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 9, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 9, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 29, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 29, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 24, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 18, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 17, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 17, 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. |
| Dec 12, 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 12, 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 11, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 25, 2006 | AMPX | PRELIMINARY/VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT - ENTERED | — |
| Aug 25, 2006 | PARI | TEAS VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 18, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |