USPTO serial 76025090
OPHONE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LAMOTHE, LESLEY
- Law office
- DIVISIONAL UNIT
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 OPHONE?
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
San Francisco, CA
San Francisco, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lori N. Boatright
LORI N BOATRIGHT BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN12400 WILSHIRE BLVD SEVENTH FLLOS ANGELES, CA 90025UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | wireless communications telephones and mobile telephones with web access and communications applications with video conferencing, personal digital assistant and recording and playback capabilities | ACTIVE | — |
| 038 | web based communication services, namely, telecommunication services in the nature of providing web based telephone and IP telephony services; providing telecommunications connections and gateway services to the Internet; audio and video teleconferencing services offered over the Internet | 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 12, 2005 | 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. |
| May 12, 2005 | 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. |
| Aug 19, 2004 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 19, 2004 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Aug 19, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 27, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Mar 11, 2004 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 23, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 20, 2004 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Aug 7, 2003 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Jul 11, 2003 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jul 11, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 1, 2003 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 10, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 7, 2003 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Aug 20, 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. |
| May 28, 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. |
| May 8, 2002 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Feb 14, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Nov 26, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 10, 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. |
| Apr 17, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 17, 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. |
| Sep 27, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |