USPTO serial 75012140
MICROMILL
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GREENBAUM, CINDY BETH
- 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 MICROMILL?
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.
Gerald D. Haynes
GERALD D HAYNESP O BOX 2266 EADS STATIONARLINGTON, VA 22202UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | industrial designing, engineering, consultation in the establishment and/or operation of continuous casting and rolling plants, and licensing of intellectual property | ABANDONED | Mar 14, 1995 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 4, 1999 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Feb 4, 1999 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Oct 22, 1998 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Oct 22, 1998 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Jan 26, 1998 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Jan 21, 1998 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Apr 25, 1997 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Apr 25, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 25, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 21, 1997 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Aug 13, 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. |
| Jul 17, 1996 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 12, 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. |
| Feb 6, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |