USPTO serial 78939303
MICROSWEEP DUOTEX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LITZAU, MICHAEL
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 104 - 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 MICROSWEEP DUOTEX?
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.
Horst M. Kasper
HORST M KASPER KASPER & LAUGHLIN13 FOREST DRWARREN, NJ 07059-5832UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 021 | Floor cleaning cloth, rags, mops, and dusters; cleaning cloths, cleaning cotton, cleaning mitts of fabric, cleaning pads, cleaning rags, cloth for wiping or dusting, washing cloths, polishing cloths, furniture dusters, window dusters, dusting gloves and unwoven fabric cosmetic wipes | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 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. |
| Nov 26, 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. |
| Apr 29, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 29, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 29, 2009 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Oct 26, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 29, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 29, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 29, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 29, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 24, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 24, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 24, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 24, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 24, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 21, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 18, 2009 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 18, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 18, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 15, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 15, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 14, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 13, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 13, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 7, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 2, 2007 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION 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. |
| Aug 2, 2007 | 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. |
| Jul 26, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 26, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 24, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 5, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 4, 2007 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION 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. |
| Jan 3, 2007 | 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 21, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 3, 2006 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Aug 2, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |