USPTO serial 76229243
VEO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- PENDLETON, CAROLYN A
- 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 VEO?
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
SAN JOSE, CA
SAN JOSE, CA
San Jose, CA
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Video conferencing systems comprised of video cameras, computer hardware, computer software for use in transmitting, capturing, storing, editing, and compressing audio and video data, and computer peripherals; photographic cameras; cell phone cameras; digital cameras; analog cameras; PC cameras; digital still cameras; small form factor cameras; networking cameras; video cameras; camera equipment, supplies, and accessories, namely, camera lenses, power cords, power supplies, memory card holders, camera bags, and tripods; computer hardware; computer software for use in transmitting, capturing, storing, editing, and compressing audio and video data; computer software for video conferencing; and manuals sold therewith; computer peripherals | 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 4, 2008 | UNDN | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - NO ACTION TAKEN | — |
| Dec 19, 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 19, 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. |
| Jun 25, 2007 | UNDN | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - NO ACTION TAKEN | — |
| Jun 5, 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. |
| May 2, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 13, 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. |
| Mar 12, 2007 | UNDN | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - NO ACTION TAKEN | — |
| Feb 21, 2007 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Feb 6, 2007 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Feb 6, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 23, 2007 | UNDN | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - NO ACTION TAKEN | — |
| Jan 4, 2007 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jan 3, 2007 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Dec 30, 2006 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 30, 2006 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| May 31, 2006 | 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. |
| May 31, 2006 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 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. |
| May 22, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Oct 18, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 6, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 30, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 5, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 22, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 22, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 10, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Oct 27, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 11, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 7, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 19, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 4, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 8, 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. |
| Jun 4, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |