USPTO serial 76101543
VIDEO GRABBER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BENMAMAN, ALICE
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
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 VIDEO GRABBER?
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
Road Town, Tortola, VI
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Charles N.J. Ruggiero
CHARTES N J RUGIERO OHLANDT GREELEY RUGGIERO & PERLE LLPONE LANDMARK SQ 9TH FLSTAMFORD, CT 06901-2582UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Remote security monitoring system comprised of capture cards, cameras, monitors, rime lapse video cassette recorders (VCRs) and digital video recorders (DVRs), which permit the video or audio signal to be monitored over the Internet or via direct dial up | ACTIVE | Jul 5, 2000 |
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 24, 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. |
| Mar 22, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Sep 26, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 30, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 13, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 13, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 17, 2002 | 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 12, 2002 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Jun 6, 2002 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| May 10, 2002 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| May 10, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 10, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 21, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 24, 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. |
| Jan 11, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |