USPTO serial 73839844
HRU-TAICHI
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- —
- 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 HRU-TAICHI?
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.
RICHARD A. FLYNT
RICHARD A FLYNT ROYLANCE, ABRAMS BERDO & GOODMAN1225 CONNECTICUT AVE N WWASHINGTON, DC 20036UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | COMPUTERS AND INTEGRATED CIRCUITS AND LARGE SCALE INTEGRATION MODULES FOR USE THEREIN; COMPUTER UTILITY SOFTWARE SOLD THEREWITH, FACTORY AUTOMATION SYSTEMS COMPRISING COMPUTERS, COMUTER PERIPHEERALS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM | 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 20, 1993 | PRRD | PETITION RECONSIDERATION REQUEST DENIED | — |
| May 10, 1993 | PRRR | PETITION RECONSIDERATION REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 16, 1992 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Jun 16, 1992 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| May 12, 1992 | 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. |
| Sep 23, 1991 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 7, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 21, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 25, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 7, 1991 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 27, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 1, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 22, 1990 | 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. |
| Jan 19, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |