USPTO serial 86466575
CLEAR CHOICE TURF DEFENSE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- TARCU, CATHERINE L
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 109 - SENIOR ATTORNEY
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 CLEAR CHOICE TURF DEFENSE?
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
Calgary, Alberta, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Carolyn Walters
CAROLYN WALTERS SUNCOR ENERGY SERVICES INC.150 - 6TH AVENUE SWCALGARY, ALBERTA, T2P3E3CANADAGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | Chemical preparations which contain plant nutrients, fertilizers, plant growth regulators, plant activators, adjuvants and pigments, which act to fortify plants and defend against stresses, promote and maintain plant growth and combat maladies of plants; fertilizers | ACTIVE | — |
| 005 | Pesticides, fungicides and herbicides; plant protectant preparations namely, pesticides, insecticides and fungicides for destroying, preventing and repelling attacks by abiotic and biotic stresses, namely, insects, pests and fungal pathogens | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2017 | 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. |
| Apr 28, 2017 | 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. |
| 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 21, 2016 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 9, 2016 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| 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 | — |
| Feb 29, 2016 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 29, 2016 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 25, 2016 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 27, 2015 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 27, 2015 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 27, 2015 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 27, 2015 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Feb 26, 2015 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 2015 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 26, 2015 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 26, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 26, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 20, 2015 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 12, 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 22, 2014 | GEAN | NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 22, 2014 | GEAP | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 22, 2014 | EPEN | COMBINED EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION AUTOMATIC ENTRY | — |
| Dec 22, 2014 | CPEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT AND/OR PRIORITY ACTION - COMPLETED | — |
| Dec 22, 2014 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 5, 2014 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Dec 1, 2014 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |