USPTO serial 74362217
RESIDENTIAL INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GOODMAN, CHERYL SUZANNE
- 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 RESIDENTIAL INTEGRATED SYSTEMS?
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.
Jeffrey B. Lawson
JEFFREY B LAWSON MILLER, JOHNSON, SNELL & CUMMISKEY800 CALDER PLZ BLDG250 MONROE AVE N WGRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 037 | installation of surveillance and burglar alarm systems, consisting of computer hardware and software, keypads, motion and light sensors, wiring, remote control devices, surveillance cameras, vehicle sensors and fire and smoke detectors | ABANDONED | Mar 1, 1993 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 1997 | 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. |
| Aug 6, 1996 | 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. |
| Jul 23, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 1, 1995 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 28, 1995 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 21, 1995 | CNEA | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Oct 27, 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. |
| Aug 8, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 23, 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. |
| Nov 22, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 19, 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. |
| May 10, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |