USPTO serial 74290689
BANDFLEX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BUSH, KAREN K
- 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 BANDFLEX?
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
D-7147 Eberdingen-Hochdorf, DE
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Felix J. D'Ambrosio
FELIX J D'AMBROSIO JONES, TULLAR & COOPER, PCP O BOX 2266 EADS STATIONARLINGTON, VA 22202UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | crimp units installed in rotary machines for binding paper | ABANDONED | Apr 1, 1985 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 1, 1996 | ZZZY | PREVIOUS ACTION COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Aug 1, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 29, 1996 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Feb 29, 1996 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Feb 29, 1996 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Jun 13, 1995 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Nov 21, 1994 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Oct 12, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 12, 1994 | 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 1, 1994 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Mar 1, 1994 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Feb 9, 1994 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Dec 22, 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. |
| May 27, 1993 | 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 6, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 6, 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. |
| Sep 14, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |