USPTO serial 76142241
BPC
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 601
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DELANEY, ZHALEH SYBIL
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
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 BPC?
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.
Jonathan E. Pruden
JONATHAN E PRUDEN KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PCONE COMMERCIAL PL STE 2000NORFOLK, VA 23510UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | business consultation and business management in the field of information technology | ACTIVE | Jan 1, 1995 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 24, 2002 | ABN1 | ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED | — |
| Sep 23, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 23, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 26, 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 8, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 7, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jul 22, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 22, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 26, 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. |
| Oct 20, 2001 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Oct 20, 2001 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Oct 9, 2001 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| May 18, 2001 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 20, 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 7, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |