USPTO serial 85672980
BRAVO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LAWRENCE, SUSAN KASTRINER
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 BRAVO?
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
Cambridge, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Timothy J. Sinnott
TIMOTHY J. SINNOTT BERESKIN & PARR LLP/S.E.N.C.R.L., S.R.L.40 KING STREET WEST, 40TH FLOORTORONTO, ONTARIO, M5H3Y2CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 024 | ballistic-resistant fabrics for the manufacture of ballistic vests | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2016 | 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. |
| Feb 23, 2016 | 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 27, 2015 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 27, 2015 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 27, 2015 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 27, 2015 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 26, 2015 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 26, 2015 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 26, 2015 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 7, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 7, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 7, 2015 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 22, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 22, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 22, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 21, 2014 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 16, 2014 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 16, 2014 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 16, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 9, 2014 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 9, 2014 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 7, 2014 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 15, 2013 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 15, 2013 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 15, 2013 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 24, 2013 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 24, 2013 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 20, 2012 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 20, 2012 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 20, 2012 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 4, 2012 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 4, 2012 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 4, 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. |
| Nov 1, 2012 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Nov 1, 2012 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Nov 1, 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. |
| Oct 31, 2012 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 17, 2012 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Jul 13, 2012 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |