USPTO serial 78960366
GREEN BOOST
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KEARNEY, COLLEEN
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - 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 GREEN BOOST?
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.
/THOMAS E. SPATH/
/THOMAS E SPATH/ ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB666 3RD AVENEW YORK, NY 10017-5621UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | FOOD SUPPLEMENTS, NAMELY, PHYTONUTRIENTS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 21, 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. |
| Apr 21, 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. |
| Sep 23, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 1, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 1, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 1, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 4, 2010 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 4, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 1, 2010 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 4, 2010 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 3, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 8, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 8, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 7, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 20, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 20, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 18, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 20, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 20, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 7, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 7, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 7, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 16, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 16, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 10, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 24, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 23, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 26, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 23, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 23, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 23, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 22, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 23, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 23, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 23, 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. |
| Jan 22, 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 22, 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 21, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 30, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |