USPTO serial 85252118
ROTOBEC TOUGH HANDLING EQUIPMENT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CASE, LEIGH CAROLINE
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 118- 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 ROTOBEC TOUGH HANDLING EQUIPMENT?
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
STE. JUSTINE, QUEBEC, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
TERESA C. TUCKER
TERESA C. TUCKER GROSSMAN, TUCKER, PERREAULT & PFLEGER, PLLC55 S COMMERCIAL STMANCHESTER, NH 03101-2606UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT AND MACHINES, NAMELY, ROTATORS, GRAPPLERS, LOADERS, HEELS, RAKES, SAWS, PIPE HANDLERS, AND BUCKETS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 8, 2016 | 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. |
| Feb 6, 2016 | 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 10, 2015 | 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. |
| Jul 10, 2015 | 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. |
| Jul 10, 2015 | 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. |
| Jun 22, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 22, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 11, 2015 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 7, 2015 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 7, 2015 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 7, 2015 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 23, 2015 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 16, 2015 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 5, 2014 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 5, 2014 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 5, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 29, 2014 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 29, 2014 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 25, 2014 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 24, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 24, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 24, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 21, 2014 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 31, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 31, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 31, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 23, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 23, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 16, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 16, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 16, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 16, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 4, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 1, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 1, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 1, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 17, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 17, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 9, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 8, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 8, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 8, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 19, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 14, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 14, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 14, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 8, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 8, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 24, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 16, 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 31, 2011 | 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. |
| May 31, 2011 | 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. |
| May 31, 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 27, 2011 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 3, 2011 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Mar 2, 2011 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Mar 1, 2011 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |