USPTO serial 73664274
SAFFIRE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 601
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BRUCE, MARY FRANCES
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with SAFFIRE?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
HENRY W. LEEDS, ESQ
HENRY W LEEDS ESQ TUCKER, FLYER & LEWIS1615 L ST N W STE 400WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5601UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | RADAR EQUIPMENT FOR USE IN AIRBORNE APPLICATIONS - NAMELY, IMAGING RADAR, DIGITAL PROCESSORS, INTERFACES, HARD COPY IMAGE ERECORDERS AND TAPE DRIVES AND HIGH RESOLUTION DISPLAYS AND HIGH DENSITY RECORDERS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR OPERATING SUCH EQUIPMENT | ABANDONED | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 5, 1992 | ABN1 | ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED | — |
| May 5, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 24, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 2, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 7, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 2, 1991 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 21, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 22, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 14, 1991 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 19, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 15, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 15, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 4, 1990 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 7, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 16, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 6, 1989 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 17, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 21, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 19, 1988 | 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 27, 1988 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| May 10, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 10, 1988 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 5, 1988 | 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 31, 1987 | 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. |