USPTO serial 75373093
MINUET
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GARTNER, JOHN M
- 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 MINUET?
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
Monroeville, PA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
ANSEL M SCHWARTZ
ANSEL M SCHWARTZ ATTORNEY AT LAWONE STERLING PLZ201 N CRAIG ST STE 304PITTSBURGH, PA 15213Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | multiple point control units for multimedia, audio or video conferencing, namely conferencing bridges | 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.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2004 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jun 17, 2004 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Mar 30, 2004 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Mar 30, 2004 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Nov 6, 2003 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Sep 28, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 11, 2003 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jun 25, 2003 | RECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON MAILED | — |
| May 13, 2003 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| May 13, 2003 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| May 9, 2003 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Oct 15, 2002 | 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. |
| Oct 1, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 6, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 6, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Oct 17, 2001 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 4, 2001 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Oct 4, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 19, 2000 | 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. |
| Dec 11, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 16, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 3, 1998 | 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. |