USPTO serial 85339932
TOILETTE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SCHRODY, ALLISON PAIGE
- 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 TOILETTE?
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
Burnaby, BC, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Thomas W. Bailey
THOMAS W. BAILEY OYEN WIGGS GREEN & MUTALA LLP601 WEST CORDOVA STREET480 - THE STATIONVANCOUVER, BC, V6B1G1Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Retail clothing store services | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 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. |
| Jan 22, 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. |
| Jun 26, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 26, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 26, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 3, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 14, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 14, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 14, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 27, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 27, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 16, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 19, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 19, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 19, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 3, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 27, 2012 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 22, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 22, 2011 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 22, 2011 | GNEN | NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2011 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2011 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 21, 2011 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 10, 2011 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Jun 10, 2011 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |