USPTO serial 86113263
SMART
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CHUO, EMILY M
- 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 SMART?
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
Guelph, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lori K. Hall
LORI K. HALL GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLPONE MAIN STREET WESTHAMILTON, ONTARIO, L8P4Z5CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 002 | anti-corrosion coatings, namely, air and water barrier coating and all purpose anti-corrosion coatings and protective coatings for building envelope | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 3, 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. |
| Aug 3, 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. |
| Jan 6, 2016 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 6, 2016 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 6, 2016 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 6, 2016 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 6, 2015 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 6, 2015 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 6, 2015 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 2, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 2, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 25, 2015 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 24, 2015 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 31, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 31, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 31, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 17, 2014 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 17, 2014 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 17, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 13, 2014 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 13, 2014 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 13, 2014 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 26, 2014 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 2014 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 25, 2014 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 19, 2013 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |