USPTO serial 75591592
ROTEX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KOVALSKY, LAURA G
- 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 ROTEX?
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
CH 6370 Stans, CH
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
James F. McKeown
JAMES F MCKEOWN CROWELL & MORING LLPP O BOX 14300WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | TRUEING MACHINES USED IN FACTORIES TO TREAT THE SURFACE OF METAL, PLASTIC, AND WOOD WORKPIECES WITH ABRASIVE MEDIUMS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 31, 2002 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Aug 21, 2002 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| May 5, 2002 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Mar 4, 2002 | RECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON MAILED | — |
| Feb 11, 2002 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Sep 17, 2001 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Aug 15, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 15, 2001 | 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. |
| Nov 22, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 22, 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. |
| Apr 6, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 6, 2000 | 1.BD | Sec. 1(B) CLAIM DELETED | — |
| Feb 29, 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. |
| Jul 12, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 11, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |