USPTO serial 78954685
INTELLIMAX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- NADELMAN, ANDREA KOYNER
- 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 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 (Reg. No. 28,380)
JAMES M SLATTERY (REG NO 28,380) BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH LLPPO BOX 747FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Artificial lift system consisting of an intelligent self-optimizing computer controlled linear reciprocating motor with a gas counterbalance system for pumping liquids from a subterranean well | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 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. |
| Jun 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. |
| Nov 7, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 7, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 7, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 29, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 27, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 27, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 27, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 13, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 12, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 12, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 19, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 19, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 19, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 18, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 12, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 12, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 12, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 8, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 31, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 31, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 31, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 6, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 6, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 6, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 17, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 17, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 17, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 18, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 8, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 8, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 8, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 8, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 3, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 5, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 5, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 5, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 4, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 4, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 4, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 4, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 14, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 14, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 14, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 14, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 14, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 14, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 13, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 20, 2007 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 20, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 20, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 31, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 31, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 31, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 12, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 16, 2007 | 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. |
| Jan 16, 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. |
| Jan 11, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 24, 2006 | MDSM | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Aug 23, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |