USPTO serial 75228650
BLASTER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- TAYLOR, DAVID T
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE SECTION
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 BLASTER?
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
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
Burbank, CA
Chicago, IL
CHICAGO, IL
CHICAGO, IL
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Megan L. Martin
Megan L. Martin Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.4000 Warner Blvd.Building 156N, Room 5070Burbank, CA 91522Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | video output games, namely, computer and video game programs in the form of cartridges, discs, CD ROMs, cassettes and tapes | ACTIVE | — |
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.
- Other trademarks owned by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
- Other trademarks owned by Midway Games Inc.
- Other trademarks owned by MIDWAY AMUSEMENT GAMES, LLC
- Other trademarks owned by MIDWAY AMUSEMENT GAMES, LLC
- Other trademarks in Class 009
- Similar marks named BLASTER
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2010 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Oct 11, 2010 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Mar 11, 2010 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Mar 11, 2010 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Feb 3, 2010 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Feb 3, 2010 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Sep 8, 2009 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Jul 29, 2009 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Jul 24, 2009 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Jul 24, 2009 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 16, 2009 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| May 27, 2009 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| May 8, 2009 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Apr 27, 2009 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Mar 13, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 13, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 13, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 6, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 31, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 29, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 29, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 28, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 25, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Apr 4, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 11, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jul 14, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 5, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 27, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 13, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 1, 1997 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 7, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 7, 1997 | 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. |
| Apr 6, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 12, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |