USPTO serial 85967615
ROYALE TREATMENT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- I, DAVID C
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 ROYALE TREATMENT?
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
Dieppe, New Brunswick, CA
IRVING CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED
SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Andrew S. Ehard
ANDREW S. EHARD MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.PO BOX 2910MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0910UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 016 | bathroom tissue, facial tissue, paper towels and paper napkins | 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 25, 2019 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE E-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 25, 2019 | 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. |
| May 13, 2019 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 13, 2019 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 13, 2019 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 9, 2018 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 9, 2018 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 9, 2018 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 17, 2018 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 17, 2018 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 12, 2018 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 13, 2018 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 13, 2018 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 13, 2018 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 13, 2018 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 13, 2018 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 2018 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 27, 2018 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 2, 2017 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 2, 2017 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 2, 2017 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 29, 2017 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 29, 2017 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 29, 2017 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 28, 2017 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 28, 2017 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 24, 2017 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 27, 2016 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 27, 2016 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 27, 2016 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 6, 2016 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 1, 2016 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 1, 2016 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 1, 2016 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 1, 2016 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 1, 2016 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 23, 2016 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 28, 2015 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 28, 2015 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 28, 2015 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 8, 2015 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 6, 2015 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2015 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2015 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 5, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 5, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 25, 2015 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 21, 2015 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Sep 17, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 17, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 17, 2014 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 17, 2014 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 17, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 17, 2014 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 17, 2014 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 7, 2014 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 6, 2014 | 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. |
| Oct 3, 2013 | 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. |
| Oct 3, 2013 | 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. |
| Oct 3, 2013 | 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 2, 2013 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 5, 2013 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |