Drawing for VIDEO CLUSTER

USPTO serial 74687944

VIDEO CLUSTER

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
THAYER, GARY
Law office
TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED

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 VIDEO CLUSTER?

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.

Michael J. Bevilacqua

MICHAEL J BEVILACQUA HALE AND DORR60 STATE STBOSTON, MA 02109UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
009computer video server network comprising a cluster of video servers for use in the cable television and telephone industries; computer operating software for use in connection with computer video server networks for use in the cable television and telephone industriesABANDONED—

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
Nov 5, 1998JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Nov 4, 1998EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Jul 17, 1998ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Jul 17, 1998EXPAEX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED—
Aug 22, 1997CNESEXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED—
Jun 26, 1997JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Apr 11, 1997EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Mar 17, 1997CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
Mar 3, 1997CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Aug 26, 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.
Jun 14, 1996CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Dec 11, 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.
Nov 26, 1995DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance