USPTO serial 75927605
VIDEO ON HOLD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HAYASH, SUSAN C
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE SECTION
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 VIDEO ON HOLD?
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.
CHARLES N. QUINN
CHARLES N QUINN FOX, ROTHSCHILD, O'BRIEN & FRANKEL, LLP2000 MARKET ST 10TH FLPHILADELPHIA, PA 19103UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Advertising services in the nature of providing prerecorded video advertising messages for use via videotelephones while business telephone callers and customers are waiting for a response; preparing custom video advertising messages interspersed with music on video recording media for video playback | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 19, 2006 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Jan 19, 2006 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Jun 1, 2005 | EX5G | SOU EXTENSION 5 GRANTED | — |
| May 11, 2005 | EXT5 | SOU EXTENSION 5 FILED | — |
| May 11, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 3, 2004 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Nov 12, 2004 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Nov 12, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 19, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 7, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 26, 2004 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| May 21, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 12, 2004 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| May 12, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 15, 2003 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 8, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 14, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 12, 2003 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jun 13, 2003 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| May 12, 2003 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| May 12, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 12, 2002 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Aug 20, 2002 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| Jul 31, 2002 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| May 9, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Apr 26, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 16, 2002 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Mar 27, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 27, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 1, 2002 | 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. |
| Feb 8, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 4, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 28, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 9, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 3, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 4, 2001 | 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 2, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 4, 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. |
| Aug 18, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 22, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |