USPTO serial 85057753
MI 3-IN-1 LOCKS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CHANG, KATHERINE S
- 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 MI 3-IN-1 LOCKS?
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.
Owner
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Electric locks | ACTIVE | Jun 1, 2010 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 18, 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. |
| Jul 18, 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 20, 2010 | GAUN | NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF UNRESPONSIVE AMENDMENT - E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 20, 2010 | GAUD | NOTICE OF UNRESPONSIVE AMENDMENT - E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 20, 2010 | NAUD | REPORT UNRESPONSIVE AMENDMENT - COMPLETED | — |
| Oct 20, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 20, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 19, 2010 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 18, 2010 | GAUN | NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF UNRESPONSIVE AMENDMENT - E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 18, 2010 | GAUD | NOTICE OF UNRESPONSIVE AMENDMENT - E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 18, 2010 | NAUD | REPORT UNRESPONSIVE AMENDMENT - COMPLETED | — |
| Oct 15, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 15, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 15, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 8, 2010 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 14, 2010 | GPRN | NOTIFICATION OF PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Sep 14, 2010 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Sep 14, 2010 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Sep 13, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 15, 2010 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2010 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Jun 11, 2010 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |