USPTO serial 78974588
HYMET
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- POLZER, NATALIE M
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 108 - 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 HYMET?
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
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Injection molding machines and structural parts and fittings therefore, for injecting of metal alloys | 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 3, 2011 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| May 5, 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. |
| May 5, 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. |
| Oct 7, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 7, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 7, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 17, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 17, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 12, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 12, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 12, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 2, 2010 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 2, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 1, 2010 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 9, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 9, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 9, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 17, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 17, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 8, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 27, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 27, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 27, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 14, 2009 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 14, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 17, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 30, 2008 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 30, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 25, 2008 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 18, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 18, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 11, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 11, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 11, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 8, 2007 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 8, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 8, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 8, 2007 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 8, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 8, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 8, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 30, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 29, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 29, 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 18, 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 18, 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 13, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 20, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |