USPTO serial 86841450
APPDRINET
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LEVINE, HOWARD B
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 APPDRINET?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Susan Upton Douglass
SUSAN UPTON DOUGLASS FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C.4 TIMES SQUARE, 17TH FLOORNEW YORK, NY 10036UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Gateway routers in the nature of computer control hardware; computer servers; computer switches; broadband wireless equipment, namely, telecommunications base station equipment for cellular and fixed networking and communications applications; mobile phones; set top boxes; computers; tablet computers; computer monitors; wireless routers; network routers; computer hardware; computer networking hardware | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 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. |
| Jun 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. |
| Nov 13, 2017 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 13, 2017 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 13, 2017 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 3, 2017 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 3, 2017 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 3, 2017 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 13, 2017 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 13, 2017 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 12, 2017 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 5, 2017 | CORV | REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE COMPLETE - ADDRESS UPDATED | — |
| Jan 31, 2017 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 17, 2016 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 17, 2016 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 17, 2016 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 26, 2016 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 24, 2016 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 21, 2016 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 21, 2016 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 21, 2016 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 21, 2016 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 10, 2015 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Dec 10, 2015 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |