USPTO serial 87496127
KURT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DELGIZZI, RONALD ERNEST
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 107 - 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 KURT?
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.
Jonathan G. Morton
Jonathan G. Morton Morton & Associates LLP246 West BroadwayNew York, NY 10013UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 020 | Divans; sofas; armchairs; beds; ottomans; tables; chairs; chaises longues; furniture; mirrors; picture frames | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 27, 2020 | 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. |
| Nov 27, 2020 | 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. |
| Apr 27, 2020 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 25, 2020 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 15, 2019 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 11, 2019 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 24, 2019 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 24, 2019 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 19, 2019 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 17, 2019 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 17, 2019 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 17, 2019 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 17, 2019 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 27, 2019 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 18, 2018 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 18, 2018 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 18, 2018 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 18, 2018 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 18, 2018 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 13, 2018 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 2, 2018 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 2, 2018 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 1, 2018 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 1, 2018 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 1, 2018 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 30, 2017 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 30, 2017 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 30, 2017 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 30, 2017 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 26, 2017 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Jun 22, 2017 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |