USPTO serial 75600240
SPIN JET
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MATTHEWS, AMOS
- 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 SPIN JET?
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.
THEODORE W. OLDS
THEODORE W OLDS HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS, PC1400 N WOODWARD AVE STE 101BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | WATER BLASTING AND CLEANING EQUIPMENT USING HIGH PRESSURE ROTATING FLUID WATER FOR CLEANING LARGE SURFACES | ACTIVE | Aug 25, 1977 |
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 24, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 19, 2002 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jun 19, 2002 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Mar 28, 2002 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Jan 28, 2002 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Nov 28, 2001 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Oct 19, 2001 | RECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON MAILED | — |
| May 25, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 24, 2000 | 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 30, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 3, 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 3, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 7, 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 28, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |