USPTO serial 86391123
CONVECTO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CHOSID, ROBIN S
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 CONVECTO?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Noel M. Cook
NOEL M. COOK OWEN, WICKERSHAM & ERICKSON, P.C.455 MARKET ST STE 1910SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-5408UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | HEATERS, NAMELY, FAN FORCED AIR HEATERS, ELECTRIC RADIANT HEATERS; CONVECTORS, NAMELY, ELECTRIC CONVECTION HEATERS, FAN CONVECTORS, ELECTRIC BASEBOARD CONVECTORS; BASEBOARD HEATERS, NAMELY, ELECTRIC BASEBOARD HEATERS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 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. |
| Oct 25, 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. |
| Mar 20, 2018 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 20, 2018 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 20, 2018 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 1, 2018 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 1, 2017 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 1, 2017 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 1, 2017 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 14, 2017 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 14, 2017 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 10, 2017 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 10, 2017 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 11, 2017 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 11, 2017 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 11, 2017 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 31, 2017 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 29, 2016 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 29, 2016 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 29, 2016 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 21, 2016 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 21, 2016 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 13, 2016 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 29, 2016 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 29, 2016 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 29, 2016 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 22, 2015 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 22, 2015 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 22, 2015 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 13, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jul 13, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 6, 2015 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 24, 2015 | 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. |
| Dec 24, 2014 | GPRN | NOTIFICATION OF PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Dec 24, 2014 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Dec 24, 2014 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Dec 21, 2014 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 18, 2014 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Sep 13, 2014 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |