USPTO serial 73775099
WALTER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FINE, STEVEN
- 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 WALTER?
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
POINTE-CLAIRE, QUEBEC, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
ELIZABETH F. JANDA
ELIZABETH F JANDA BROOKS & KUSHMAN2000 TOWN CTRSTE 2000SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | POWER-OPERATED HANDHELD DRILLS, ROTARY HAMMERS AND SCREWDRIVERS, ABRASIVE CUT-OFF WHEELS, SANDING DISCS, CUP WHEELS, MOUNTED POINTS, FLAP WHEELS, PLUGS, CONES, WIRE CUP BRUSHES AND WIRE WHEEL BRUSHES FOR USE WITH POWER OPERATED HANDHELD TOOLS FOR CUTTING, NOTCHING OR SURFACE FINISHING METAL OR CONCRETE, HOLD SAW BLADES, JIGSAW BLADES, RECIPROCATING SAW BLADES, CIRCULAR SAW BLADES, WOOD DRILL BITS, MASONRY DRILL BITS, STEEL DRILL BITS, WOODWORKING AND METALWORKING TAPS AND DIES, SCREWDRIVER BITS, DRILL CHECKS AND CARBIDE BURRS FOR USE WITH POWER OPERATED HANDHELD TOOLS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 12, 1990 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| May 14, 1990 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 24, 1990 | 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 17, 1990 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Feb 23, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 14, 1989 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Jun 26, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 17, 1989 | 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. |