USPTO serial 85396074
SCINTILLIGHT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CASTRO, GIANCARLO
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 110 - 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 SCINTILLIGHT?
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
Nisku, Alberta, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Nathan Woodruff
NATHAN WOODRUFF THOMPSON WOODRUFF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW200, 10328 - 81 AVENUE NWEDMONTON, ALBERTA, T6E1X2CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | LED lighting for general purpose lighting, namely, LED lamps, LED light fixtures, LED light bulbs, LED light tubes | 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 1, 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. |
| Oct 1, 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. |
| Mar 3, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 10, 2014 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 8, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 8, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 8, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 15, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 11, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 11, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 11, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 21, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 21, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 20, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 27, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 27, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 27, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 7, 2012 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 7, 2012 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 7, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 7, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 7, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 2, 2011 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 17, 2011 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Aug 16, 2011 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Aug 15, 2011 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |