USPTO serial 74529244
SMARTMOTOR
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STRASER, RICHARD
- 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 SMARTMOTOR?
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.
Amy L. Gilson
AMY L GILSON HOLTZMANN, WISE & SHEPARD3030 HANSEN WAY, STE 100PALO ALTO, CA 94304UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | apparatus for controlling robotic machines, namely electric motors with built-in controls | ABANDONED | Dec 7, 1994 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 1999 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| May 14, 1999 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jan 11, 1999 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Jan 11, 1999 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Sep 30, 1996 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Sep 24, 1996 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jul 29, 1996 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jul 19, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 18, 1996 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Apr 16, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 16, 1996 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Mar 28, 1996 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Mar 27, 1996 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Sep 26, 1995 | 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. |
| Sep 22, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 22, 1995 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Sep 21, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 19, 1995 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Sep 15, 1995 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Jun 15, 1995 | 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 5, 1995 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Nov 7, 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. |
| Oct 20, 1994 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |