USPTO serial 88320799
PITA LAND MIDEAST URBAN KITCHEN
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BHANOT, KAPIL KUMAR
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 108 - 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 PITA LAND MIDEAST URBAN KITCHEN?
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
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 043 | Restaurant services, fast food restaurant services, carry out restaurant services, catering services | 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 5, 2023 | 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. |
| Apr 5, 2023 | 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 5, 2023 | 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. |
| Dec 13, 2022 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 13, 2022 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 13, 2022 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 18, 2022 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 4, 2022 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 4, 2022 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 4, 2022 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 9, 2022 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 9, 2022 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 7, 2022 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 20, 2021 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 20, 2021 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 20, 2021 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 1, 2021 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 11, 2021 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 11, 2021 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 11, 2021 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 31, 2020 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 31, 2020 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 29, 2020 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 6, 2020 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 6, 2020 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 6, 2020 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 23, 2020 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 15, 2020 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 19, 2019 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 19, 2019 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 19, 2019 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 12, 2019 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 11, 2019 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 11, 2019 | 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 10, 2019 | 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. |
| May 10, 2019 | 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. |
| May 10, 2019 | 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. |
| May 9, 2019 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 20, 2019 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Mar 4, 2019 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |