USPTO serial 85278626
ACCUTRACK
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SUAREZ, MARIA VICTORIA
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 ACCUTRACK?
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
Winnpeg, Manitoba, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Stephanie K. Wade
Stephanie K. Wade SUGHRUE MION, PLLC2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | cameras; surgical anatomical probes; computer software and programs for use in conducting neurological, neurovascular and cardiovascular procedures | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2, 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. |
| Jul 2, 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. |
| Apr 24, 2014 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Apr 24, 2014 | COAR | TEAS CHANGE OF OWNER ADDRESS RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 5, 2014 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Feb 5, 2014 | COAR | TEAS CHANGE OF OWNER ADDRESS RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 4, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 4, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 4, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 4, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 11, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 11, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 11, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 10, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 10, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 4, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 1, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 1, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 1, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 8, 2013 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 4, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 25, 2013 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 2, 2012 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 1, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 9, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 9, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 22, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 11, 2012 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 8, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 21, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 21, 2012 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 18, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 18, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 18, 2011 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 18, 2011 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 1, 2011 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 31, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 31, 2011 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 31, 2011 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 28, 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. |
| Jun 27, 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. |
| Jun 24, 2011 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 1, 2011 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Mar 31, 2011 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Mar 31, 2011 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |