USPTO serial 73743465
RISC/C
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HERMAN, RUSS
- 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 RISC/C?
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.
Charles N. Quinn
CHARLES N QUINN DANN, DORFMAN, HERRELL & SKILLMANSTE 720 1601 MARKET STPHILADELPHIA, PA 19103UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR USE BY SOFTWARE PROGRAMMERS TO EMULATE SYSTEM CONDITIONS IN THE COURSE OF DESIGNING, DEVELOPING AND TESTING NEW APPLICATIONS COMPUTER PROGRAMS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 1999 | 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 3, 1998 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 27, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 14, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 9, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 25, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 23, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 9, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 4, 1993 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 14, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 13, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 20, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 9, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 9, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 30, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 7, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 18, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 16, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 30, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 7, 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. |
| Sep 19, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |