USPTO serial 74185642
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
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.
Mountain View, CA
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Karen N. Ikeda
KAREN N IKEDA BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISONTWO EMBARCADERO PL2200 GENG RDPALO ALTO, CA 94303-0913| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | computer software and hardware in a mobile computing environment together with manuals | ABANDONED | — |
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 21, 1994 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Nov 3, 1993 | PILM | PETITION INQUIRY LETTER ISSUED | — |
| Oct 5, 1993 | PILM | PETITION INQUIRY LETTER ISSUED | — |
| Jul 22, 1993 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 23, 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. |
| Nov 4, 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. |
| Oct 28, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 23, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |