USPTO serial 75582719
ORBITAL GRID TECHNOLOGY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BRECKENFELD, WILLIAM G
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with ORBITAL GRID TECHNOLOGY?
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.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
ROGER P. FUREY
ROGER P FUREY KATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS ROSENMAN1025 THOMAS JEFFERSON ST NWE LOBBY STE 700WASHINGTON, DC 20007Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Batteries for vehicles | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2, 2008 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Dec 15, 2004 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | 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. |
| Dec 15, 2004 | 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. |
| Mar 16, 2004 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jan 22, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 22, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 24, 2003 | 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 7, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 7, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 7, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 7, 2002 | 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 5, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 31, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 31, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 11, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 5, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 31, 1999 | 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. |
| Jun 7, 1999 | CNEA | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| May 28, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |