USPTO serial 85053795
ICE INTENSITY COLOR EFFICIENCY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LEIPZIG, MARC J
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 ICE INTENSITY COLOR EFFICIENCY?
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
Welland, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Rachelle A. Dubow
RACHELLE A. DUBOW BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLPONE FEDERAL STREETBOSTON, MA 02110UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE (LED) LIGHT BULBS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 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. |
| Sep 1, 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. |
| Feb 3, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 3, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 3, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 19, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 19, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 19, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 19, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 19, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 9, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 5, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 5, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 5, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 16, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 26, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 26, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 26, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 22, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 22, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 1, 2011 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 27, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 27, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 27, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 24, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 8, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 8, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 8, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 18, 2011 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 18, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 3, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 22, 2011 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 15, 2011 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2011 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 22, 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. |
| Sep 22, 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. |
| Sep 22, 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. |
| Sep 15, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 9, 2010 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Jun 8, 2010 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Jun 7, 2010 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |