USPTO serial 85501039
PAVOPHEN
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MCDOWELL, MATTHEW J
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - 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 PAVOPHEN?
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
Boucherville, Québec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Brent E. Routman
BRENT E. ROUTMAN MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.PO BOX 2910MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0910UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | Pain relief medication, analgesics, and pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of insomnia and for sleeping regulation | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2018 | 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. |
| Apr 17, 2018 | 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. |
| Sep 18, 2017 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 15, 2017 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 31, 2017 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 31, 2017 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 21, 2017 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 18, 2017 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 11, 2017 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 11, 2017 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 6, 2017 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 9, 2016 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 9, 2016 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 7, 2016 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 4, 2016 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 31, 2015 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 21, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 21, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 18, 2015 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 29, 2015 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 27, 2015 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 25, 2015 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Dec 23, 2014 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 22, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 9, 2014 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 9, 2014 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 2, 2014 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 9, 2014 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 6, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 22, 2014 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 18, 2013 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 16, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 12, 2013 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 12, 2013 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 4, 2013 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| May 14, 2013 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 14, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 18, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 12, 2012 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 11, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 18, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 18, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 14, 2012 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 6, 2012 | 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. |
| Mar 28, 2012 | 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. |
| Mar 27, 2012 | 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. |
| Mar 27, 2012 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 3, 2012 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Dec 24, 2011 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |