USPTO serial 75756323
IDENTEC
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 601
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- VANSTON, KATHY
- 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 IDENTEC?
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
Co Durham DH4 5PH, GB
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Charles B. Rodman
CHARLES B RODMAN RODMAN & RODMAN7 S BROADWAYWHITE PLAINS, NY 10601UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | ELECTRONIC RADIO FREQUENCY TRANSPONDERS AND TAGS; ELECTRONICC INTERROGATION APPARATUS, NAMELY, ELECTRONIC READERS FOR ALL OF THE AFORESAID GOODS; ELECTRONIC AND RADIOFREQUENCY TRANSPONDERS AND TAGS FOR CONTROLLING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND EQUIPMENT AND RESTRICTED AREAS FOR SECURITY PURPOSES; ELECTRONIC INTERROGATION APPARATUS, NAMELY, ELECTRONIC READERS FOR ELECTRONIC AND RADIO FREQUENCY TRANSPONDERS AND TAGS FOR CONTROLLING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND EQUIPMENT AND RESTRICTED AREAS FOR SECURITY PURPOSES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2002 | ABN1 | ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 11, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 12, 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 5, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 15, 2001 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Feb 9, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 9, 2001 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 24, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 22, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 3, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 26, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 28, 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. |
| Dec 13, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 8, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |