USPTO serial 75906728
EDVD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SMIGA, HOWARD
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - 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 EDVD?
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.
DANIEL R COOK
ALLYN TAYLOR DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP2000 UNIVERSITY AVEEAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND COMPUTER HARDWARE, NAMELY, SEMICONDUCTORS, DIGITAL VIDEO DISC, VIDEO COMPACT DISC PLAYERS, SUPER VIDEO COMPACT DISC PLAYERS, INTERNET SET-TOP BOXES, HIGH DEFINITION TELEVISION SETS, VIDEOPHONES, INTERNET PHONES, WEB BROWSERS, DIGITAL PHOTO DISPLAY DEVICES, AND PARTS THEREFOR FOR ALL OF THE AFORESAID GOODS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1, 2005 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 22, 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 22, 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. |
| Jul 5, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| May 19, 2004 | 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. |
| Mar 19, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Mar 20, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 31, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 17, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 30, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 27, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 31, 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. |
| Jul 14, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 5, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 29, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |