USPTO serial 85167984
URBAN TOUCH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SHOSHO II, ERNEST
- Law office
- LAW OFFICE 117 - 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 URBAN TOUCH?
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
Saint-Laurent, Quebec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Caroline Guy
CAROLINE GUY GUY & MUZZO SENC2981 WILLIAM-TREMBLAYMONTREAL, QUEBEC, H1Y3K2CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | Clothing, namely, shirts, sport shirts, women shirts, knit t-shirts, knit tops, turtlenecks, polo style knit tops, sweaters, vests, jackets, light outerwear jackets, pants, shorts, swimsuits, jeans, hats, caps and socks | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 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. |
| Apr 9, 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. |
| Sep 11, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 11, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 11, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 10, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 6, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 6, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 6, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 20, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 22, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 22, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 22, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 15, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 15, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 12, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 12, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 12, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 12, 2011 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 6, 2010 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Nov 6, 2010 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |