USPTO serial 74001229
I686
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ROSENBURGH, ELISSA
- 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 I686?
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
SANTA CLARA, CA
SANTA CLARA, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Katherine M. Basile
Katherine M. Basile Reed Smith LLPP.O. Box 488Reed Smith Docketing DepartmentPittsburgh, PA 15222Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, NAMELY SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS, ELECTRONIC CIRCUIT BOARDS, COMPUTER MICROPROCESSORS, COMPUTER OPERATING PROGRAMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS IN THE FIELD OF SOFTWARE COMPATABILITY | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2015 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Jul 28, 2015 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| May 14, 1993 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Mar 3, 1993 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 15, 1992 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Nov 12, 1992 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Jul 12, 1992 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Apr 12, 1992 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Feb 7, 1992 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 7, 1992 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 7, 1992 | LEXT | LATE FILED EXTENSION REQUEST | — |
| Nov 14, 1991 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Nov 11, 1991 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jun 22, 1991 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| May 10, 1991 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Nov 13, 1990 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Jun 19, 1990 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| May 19, 1990 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Feb 28, 1990 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jan 26, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |