USPTO serial 76128594
IPC
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SAITO, KIM
- 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 IPC?
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.
Erik B. Cherdak, Esq.
MARK H TIDMAN AND ERIK B CHERDAK ARENT FOX KINTNER PLOTKIN & KAHN, PLLC1050 CONNECTICUT AVE NWWASHINGTON, DC 20036UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Business marketing consulting services in the nature of designing electronic compact disc-based cards for use in personal computer compact disc players that contain companies' products and services information | 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 29, 2007 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Dec 6, 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. |
| Dec 6, 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. |
| Apr 24, 2006 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Mar 30, 2006 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Mar 30, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 6, 2005 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Sep 27, 2005 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Sep 27, 2005 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Apr 5, 2005 | 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. |
| Jan 11, 2005 | 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. |
| Dec 22, 2004 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Nov 1, 2004 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Oct 29, 2004 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 5, 2004 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Sep 3, 2004 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Sep 3, 2004 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jan 15, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 12, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 24, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 24, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 23, 2003 | 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. |
| Nov 27, 2002 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Oct 4, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 3, 2002 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jul 24, 2002 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jul 23, 2002 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jan 15, 2002 | 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. |
| Aug 4, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 6, 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. |
| May 15, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 2, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 14, 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. |
| Mar 11, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |