USPTO serial 75883428
DIGITALCOURTROOM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DWYER, JOHN D
- Law office
- TTAB
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 DIGITALCOURTROOM?
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
Rockville Centre, NY
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
STEVEN J WADYKA JR
STEVEN J WADYKA JR GREENBERG TRAURIG1750 TYSONS BLVD 12TH FLMCLEAN, VA 22102UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | business services, namely, providing high-tech courtroom mock-up facilities to be used for pretrial, trial and alternative dispute resolution practice and strategy development | ACTIVE | — |
| 041 | educational services, namely, providing seminars and training in the use of high technology equipment and displays in the courtroom, seminars relating to jury selection and other trial preparation services tailored to the location of a particular court or jurisdiction | 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, 2003 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| May 7, 2003 | 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. |
| Sep 9, 2002 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Aug 9, 2002 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Aug 9, 2002 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jul 11, 2002 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jun 28, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 28, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 26, 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. |
| Dec 6, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 21, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 7, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 13, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 13, 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. |
| Jun 7, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 24, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |