USPTO serial 76164025
TURBOFLASH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 601
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KHAN, ASMAT A
- 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 TURBOFLASH?
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.
B Aaron Schulman
B AARON SCHULMAN LARSON & TAYLOR PLC1199 N FAIRFAX ST STE 900ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Grinding and electro-erosive machines for working on tools made of hard materials, in particular diamond tools; grinding machines, machines for electro-erosive working on work pieces; machines for grinding and electro-erosive working on work pieces; grinding tools for machines, namely mechanical and electro-erosive grinding wheels | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2002 | ABN1 | ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED | — |
| Jul 25, 2002 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Jul 24, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 20, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jul 17, 2002 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Mar 22, 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. |
| Oct 15, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 1, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 26, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 4, 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 22, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |