USPTO serial 85089476
HANDI OH'S
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KON, ELISSA GARBER
- 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 HANDI OH'S?
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
Weston, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Christie Baty Heinze
CHRISTIE BATY HEINZE FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LL901 NEW YORK AVE NWWASHINGTON, DC 20001-4432UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | Bread, bagels and baked snacks | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 14, 2014 | 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 14, 2014 | 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. |
| Dec 16, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 16, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 14, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 14, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 14, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 7, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 10, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 10, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 10, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 6, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 6, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 6, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 6, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 6, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 6, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 29, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 8, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 8, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 8, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 5, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 31, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 31, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 31, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 21, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 21, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 9, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 4, 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. |
| Nov 4, 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. |
| Nov 4, 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. |
| Nov 4, 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. |
| Nov 3, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 27, 2010 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Jul 26, 2010 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Jul 24, 2010 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |