USPTO serial 86883514
CYTIME2
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HISER, CHARLES
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 112 - 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 CYTIME2?
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
Mississauga, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lori S. Kozak
LORI S. KOZAK FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP997 LENOX DRIVE, BUILDING 3LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648-2311UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | computer software for monitoring industrial machine performance; computer software for tracking and logging manufactured product quality; computer software for providing quality assurance with respect to manufactured goods; computer software for tracking and controlling the inventory of manufactured goods; computer software for tracking and controlling inventory of precision machined parts and goods; computer software for logging and controlling precision machining tool performance | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2019 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE E-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. |
| Feb 20, 2019 | 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. |
| Jul 23, 2018 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2018 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2018 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 18, 2018 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 18, 2018 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 18, 2018 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 18, 2018 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 17, 2018 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 17, 2018 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 9, 2018 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 9, 2018 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 26, 2017 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 26, 2017 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 26, 2017 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 26, 2017 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Oct 26, 2016 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 26, 2016 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 26, 2016 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 24, 2016 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 24, 2016 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 20, 2016 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 7, 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 16, 2016 | 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. |
| May 16, 2016 | 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. |
| May 16, 2016 | 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. |
| May 9, 2016 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 29, 2016 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 28, 2016 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Jan 26, 2016 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |