USPTO serial 85009982
CREW HOTEL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MARTIN, LIEF ANDREW
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 112 - 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 CREW HOTEL?
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.
Michael J. Bevilacqua, Esquire
MICHAEL J. BEVILACQUA, ESQUIRE WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORRLLP60 STATE ST STE 25BOSTON, MA 02109-1816UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 043 | hotel services and hospitality services | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2017 | 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. |
| Jan 25, 2017 | 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. |
| Jun 29, 2016 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Jun 29, 2016 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-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. |
| Jun 29, 2016 | 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. |
| Jun 16, 2016 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 16, 2016 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 13, 2016 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 17, 2015 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 17, 2015 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 17, 2015 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 16, 2015 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 9, 2015 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 9, 2015 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 9, 2015 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 21, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 21, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 19, 2015 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 26, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 26, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 26, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 12, 2014 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 9, 2014 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 9, 2014 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 9, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 15, 2014 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 15, 2014 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 8, 2014 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 15, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 15, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 15, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 1, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 1, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 1, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 1, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 11, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 11, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 7, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 20, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 20, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 20, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 12, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 9, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 9, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 9, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 1, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 1, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 13, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 24, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 24, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 24, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 29, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 27, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 27, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 27, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 27, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 27, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 21, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 13, 2011 | 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. |
| Jul 13, 2010 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF 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. |
| Jul 13, 2010 | 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. |
| Jul 13, 2010 | 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 13, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 14, 2010 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Apr 12, 2010 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |