USPTO serial 85238184
HONEY FLOWER FARM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SNAPP, TINA LOUISE
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 HONEY FLOWER FARM?
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
Abbotsford, BC, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Karl E. Gustafson
KARL E. GUSTAFSON MCMILLAN LLP1500-1055 West Georgia StreetPO Box 11117, Royal CentreVancouver, BC, V6E4N7Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | a computer and video software game, namely, game software and a game program for use on computers, video game consoles and video game players; a video game on DVDs, CD-ROMs, compact discs and downloadable computer programs provided through the Internet and a communication network for use with mobile phones and wireless devices | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9, 2018 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 29, 2015 | 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. |
| Jan 28, 2015 | 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. |
| Jul 1, 2014 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 1, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 5, 2013 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 4, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 13, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 13, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 4, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 30, 2013 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 30, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 11, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 10, 2013 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 10, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 15, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 6, 2012 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 6, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 16, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 13, 2012 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 13, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 23, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 23, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 17, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 9, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 9, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 16, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 16, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 15, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| May 25, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 25, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 24, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 17, 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. |
| May 10, 2011 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION 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. |
| May 10, 2011 | 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. |
| May 10, 2011 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 15, 2011 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Feb 12, 2011 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |