Drawing for MEGA VISION

USPTO serial 74608858

MEGA VISION

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
MERMELSTEIN, DAVID
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 MEGA VISION?

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.

ARTHUR SCHWARTZ

ARTHUR SCHWARTZ FOLEY & LARDNERSTE 5003000 K ST N WWASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
009liquid crystal television sets for domestic viewing purposes; video projectors; liquid crystal video projectors; screens for video projectors; loud speakers; amplifiers; television sets for domestic viewing purposes; video camerasABANDONED—

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

DateCodeEventWhat it means
Aug 5, 1998ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Aug 5, 1998EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Aug 5, 1998EXPAEX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED—
Oct 6, 1997CNESEXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED—
May 19, 1997CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
May 15, 1997JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Apr 16, 1997CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Oct 17, 1996CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
Aug 19, 1996JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Aug 19, 1996EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Jan 22, 1996CNFRFINAL REFUSAL MAILEDA 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.
Nov 8, 1995CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
May 9, 1995CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION MAILEDA 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 8, 1995DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance