USPTO serial 85929271
UN-TORTILLA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SPILS, CAROL A
- 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 UN-TORTILLA?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Marlene J. Williams
MARLENE J. WILLIAMS NIXON PEABODY LLPPO BOX 26769SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94126-6769UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | Gluten-free, pulse and legume-based tortillas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 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. |
| Nov 11, 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. |
| Apr 13, 2016 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 13, 2016 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 13, 2016 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 31, 2016 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 25, 2015 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2015 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2015 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 22, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 22, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 16, 2015 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 31, 2015 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 3, 2015 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 2015 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 2015 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 2, 2014 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 2, 2014 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 2, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 15, 2014 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 15, 2014 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 4, 2014 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 1, 2014 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 5, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 5, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 5, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 27, 2013 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 27, 2013 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 27, 2013 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 26, 2013 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 17, 2013 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| May 14, 2013 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |