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 STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | computer 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 industries | ABANDONED | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 1998 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Nov 4, 1998 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jul 17, 1998 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Jul 17, 1998 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Aug 22, 1997 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Jun 26, 1997 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Apr 11, 1997 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Mar 17, 1997 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 26, 1996 | 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. |
| Jun 14, 1996 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 11, 1995 | 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 26, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |