USPTO serial 73359644
VIDEO COMMANDER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- —
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
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 VIDEO COMMANDER?
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.
KIT M. STETINA
KIT M STETINA STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER75 ENTERPRISE STE 250ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | VIDEO SWITCHING EQUIPMENT FOR A HOME VIDEO SYSTEM | ABANDONED | Oct 17, 1980 |
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 5, 2002 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| May 19, 1987 | 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. |
| May 19, 1987 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 29, 1986 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION 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. |
| Apr 12, 1984 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 28, 1984 | CNEA | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Feb 29, 1984 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jan 25, 1984 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 25, 1984 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 22, 1983 | 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. |
| Aug 10, 1982 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION 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. |
| Jul 29, 1982 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |