USPTO serial 76035041
XPEED NETWORKS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FRENCH, CURTIS W
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 XPEED NETWORKS?
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
San Jose, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Kenneth J DeLeon
KENNETH J DELEON WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI650 PAGE MILL RDPALO ALTO, CA 94304-1050UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Computer hardware; computer software for high-speed transfer of voice and data over electronic and optical communications networks | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 2005 | 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. |
| Aug 24, 2005 | 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. |
| Jan 26, 2005 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jan 25, 2005 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING A FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Dec 15, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 9, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jun 17, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 16, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 20, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 11, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 7, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 7, 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. |
| May 4, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 21, 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. |
| Oct 26, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 17, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |