USPTO serial 85273866
SMARTSAFE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- EDWARDS, ALICIA COLLINS
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 SMARTSAFE?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Jeffrey A. Smith
JEFFREY A. SMITH MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.2200 CLARENDON BLVD STE 1400ARLINGTON, VA 22201-3360UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 012 | Transport vehicles, namely, shopping carts, motorized luggage carts, baby carriages; structural parts for motorized transport vehicles, namely, castors, handles, coin-operated power locks, children's safety belts, advertisement display boards specially adapted for use on transport vehicles | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 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. |
| Jun 22, 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. |
| Nov 24, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 24, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 24, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 1, 2014 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 1, 2014 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 1, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 21, 2014 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 21, 2014 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 14, 2014 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 15, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 15, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 15, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 16, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 3, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 8, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 8, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 6, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 6, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 6, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 6, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 9, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 4, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 4, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 4, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 9, 2011 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 9, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 8, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 22, 2011 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 22, 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 23, 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 20, 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 20, 2011 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 29, 2011 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Mar 28, 2011 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Mar 25, 2011 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |