USPTO serial 74278778
POLYGLASS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- AURINI, GEOFFREY
- 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 POLYGLASS?
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.
Philip J. Zadeik
PHILIP J ZADEIK BAKER & MCKENZIEONE PRUDENTIAL PLZ130 E RANDOLPH DRCHICAGO, IL 60601Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 019 | Waterproof membrane for above grade use, namely, as a roofing membrane and for below grade use, namely, as non-metal flashing around the foundation of a building | ACTIVE | — |
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 7, 1999 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Dec 7, 1999 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Dec 7, 1999 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Jun 21, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 28, 1999 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| May 12, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 7, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 6, 1999 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| May 6, 1999 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Oct 24, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 4, 1998 | 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. |
| Apr 24, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 28, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 1, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 14, 1995 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 19, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 22, 1994 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Apr 4, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 3, 1994 | 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. |
| Apr 22, 1993 | 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. |
| Mar 12, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 10, 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. |
| Aug 5, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |