USPTO serial 86676005
REPLAY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- COLLIER, DAVID E
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 109 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with REPLAY?
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.
Thomas J. Burger
MICHAEL G FREY WOOD HERRON & EVANS LLP441 VINE ST2700 CAREW TOWERCINCINNATI, OH 45202-2917Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 017 | Synthetic turf particulate infill material, namely, recycled polymer pellets which are applied to and distributed within the synthetic turf fibers of a synthetic turf that is used in landscaping, residential applications, or for athletic fields and other commercial purposes | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2017 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| May 4, 2017 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| May 4, 2017 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Mar 24, 2017 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Jan 9, 2017 | GEA1 | NOTIFICATION OF ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 9, 2017 | GECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 9, 2017 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Dec 29, 2016 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 29, 2016 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 21, 2016 | ERFR | TEAS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 21, 2016 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Dec 21, 2016 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Dec 21, 2016 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jun 24, 2016 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Jun 24, 2016 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Jun 24, 2016 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Jun 7, 2016 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 7, 2016 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 6, 2016 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 25, 2016 | NREV | NOTICE OF REVIVAL - E-MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2016 | 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. |
| May 24, 2016 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| May 24, 2016 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| May 4, 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. |
| May 4, 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. |
| Oct 7, 2015 | 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 7, 2015 | 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 7, 2015 | 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 5, 2015 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 4, 2015 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Jun 30, 2015 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |