USPTO serial 74080157
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SPECIALISTS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- JUDGE, CONNIE M.
- 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 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SPECIALISTS?
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.
Faye R. Longo
FAYE R LONGO5180 PARK AVE #310MEMPHIS, TN 38119UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | sale of cleaning products for keyboards, printers, lenses, glass and plastic screens, exterior surface of office equipment and floors, carpets and furniture | ABANDONED | Jun 1, 1986 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 1996 | 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. |
| Feb 13, 1996 | 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. |
| Oct 21, 1995 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 10, 1994 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Sep 10, 1993 | PETL | COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM PETITIONER | — |
| Aug 10, 1993 | PILM | PETITION INQUIRY LETTER ISSUED | — |
| Aug 27, 1992 | PETL | COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM PETITIONER | — |
| Oct 15, 1991 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 15, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 27, 1991 | 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. |
| Jan 28, 1991 | 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. |
| Dec 14, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |