USPTO serial 76156495
T-BUSINESS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SPRUILL, DARRYL M
- 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 T-BUSINESS?
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.
Midge M Hyman
MIDGE M HYMAN COWAN LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN PC1133 AVE OF THE AMERICASNEW YORK, NY 10036-6710UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | SOFTWARE PROGRAM TO ENABLE ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION PROCESSING IN CUSTOMER SOFTWARE | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2007 | 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 20, 2007 | 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. |
| May 29, 2007 | 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. |
| Mar 6, 2007 | 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. |
| Feb 14, 2007 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jan 11, 2007 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jan 11, 2007 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Dec 28, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 28, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 28, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 22, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 21, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 21, 2006 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Dec 21, 2006 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Dec 21, 2006 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 24, 2006 | 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. |
| Nov 22, 2006 | 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. |
| Apr 7, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 6, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 4, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 22, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 22, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 25, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 25, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 9, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 18, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 13, 2004 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jan 29, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 29, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 29, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 9, 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. |
| May 2, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 22, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 23, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 18, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |