USPTO serial 74196881
VIDEOSUITE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- TINGLEY, JOHN
- 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 VIDEOSUITE?
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
Vancouver, British Columbia, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Kirk M. Hudson
KIRK M HUDSON OLIFF & BERRIDGEALLORNEYS AT LAWP O BOX 19928ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | computer software for use in the field of multi-media; computer hardware and instructional manuals therefor; audio and video equipment; namely, video cameras, audio-video remote control devices, receivers for audio/video remote control devices, multi-deck video tape machines, computer add-in boards to control remote audio/video equipment and digitize audio/video signals, computer add-in boards to create special effects to audio and video signals | 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 13, 1994 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Feb 14, 1994 | PILM | PETITION INQUIRY LETTER ISSUED | — |
| Nov 17, 1993 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 29, 1993 | 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 5, 1992 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 20, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 27, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 9, 1992 | 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. |
| Nov 29, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |