USPTO serial 76330031
GENESYS TELEEVENT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- YARD, JOHN S
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with GENESYS TELEEVENT?
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.
Owner
34008 Montpellier Cedex, FR
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Scott Greenberg
DOCKET ADMINSTRATOR MORGAN & FINNEGAN LLP3 WORLD FINANCIAL CTRNEW YORK, NY 10281-2101UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 038 | Distance communication services, namely audio, video, computer and web conferencing services | 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 18, 2007 | 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. |
| Jan 17, 2007 | 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. |
| Jun 17, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 17, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 31, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 28, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 13, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 13, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 11, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 27, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 27, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 22, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 23, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 4, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 18, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 22, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 22, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 21, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 15, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 17, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 15, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 15, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 13, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 14, 2002 | 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. |
| Feb 6, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 30, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 25, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 17, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |