USPTO serial 85118508
MAXILODA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MAYES, LAURIE ANN
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 MAXILODA?
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
Ancaster, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Christopher J. Maier
Christopher J. Maier MAIER & MAIER, PLLC345 South Patrick StreetALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-3512UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 006 | Pallet stacking systems for vehicles primarily comprised of metal rails, metal beams and a trolley; components of pallet stacking systems sold separately, namely, metal rails and metal beams | ACTIVE | — |
| 037 | installation, repair and maintenance services in connection with pallet stacking systems for vehicles comprised primarily of metal rails, beams and trolleys | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 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. |
| Aug 22, 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. |
| Jan 24, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 24, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 24, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 24, 2014 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 11, 2013 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 20, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 20, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 20, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 3, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 3, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 28, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 27, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 27, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 27, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 26, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 25, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 25, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 25, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 22, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 22, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 1, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 10, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 10, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 10, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 8, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 7, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 5, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 5, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 5, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 4, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 4, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| 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. |
| Dec 12, 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. |
| Dec 12, 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. |
| Dec 12, 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. |
| Dec 12, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 3, 2010 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |