USPTO serial 85405098
I-CLEAR
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BLAIR, JASON
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 104 - 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 I-CLEAR?
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
Geyonggi-do, KR
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
E. Russell Tarleton
E. RUSSELL TARLETON SEED IP LAW GROUP PLLC701 5TH AVE STE 5400SEATTLE, WA 98104-7064UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 012 | Windshield wiper blades for automobiles; Windshield wipers for automobiles; Windshield wipers for front-glass of automobiles | 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 9, 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 9, 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. |
| Jul 16, 2013 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 13, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 13, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 13, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 13, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 13, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 13, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 12, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 12, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 12, 2012 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 14, 2012 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2012 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2012 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 12, 2012 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 12, 2011 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 12, 2011 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 12, 2011 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 12, 2011 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 29, 2011 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Aug 26, 2011 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |