USPTO serial 78976719
HOMEBUILDING BEST PRACTICES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- AYALA, LOURDES
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 HOMEBUILDING BEST PRACTICES?
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
Pittsburgh, PA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
WILLIAM H LOGSDON
WILLIAM H LOGSDON WEBB ZIESENHEIM LOGSDON ORKIN & HANSON700 KOPPERS BLDG436 7TH AVEPITTSBURGH, PA 15219-1818Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Downloadable electronic publications, namely, online publications via a global computer network in the nature of magazines, newsletters, books and brochures relating to design engineering, troubleshooting, research, training and quality assessment services for residential construction | ACTIVE | — |
| 016 | Print publications, namely, magazines, newsletters, books and brochures about design engineering, troubleshooting, research, training and quality assessment services for residential construction | ACTIVE | — |
| 042 | Technical consultation, namely, design engineering, troubleshooting, research and quality assessment and consultation in the field of residential construction | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 2007 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| May 9, 2007 | 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 9, 2007 | 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 11, 2006 | CEAP | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION MAILED | — |
| Oct 11, 2006 | CEPE | COMBINED EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION ENTERED | — |
| Oct 11, 2006 | CPEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT AND/OR PRIORITY ACTION - COMPLETED | — |
| Oct 11, 2006 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Oct 6, 2006 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 27, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 21, 2006 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Sep 21, 2006 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Sep 15, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 15, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 13, 2006 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Mar 12, 2006 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Feb 14, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 14, 2006 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Feb 14, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 31, 2006 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Jan 17, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 17, 2006 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Jan 17, 2006 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 17, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 13, 2005 | 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. |
| Jul 13, 2005 | 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 12, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 16, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |