USPTO serial 76346556
ROBOFORMER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CAIN, CATHERINE P
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
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 ROBOFORMER?
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
1-36040 Sarego (VI), IT
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
J. Rodman Steele, Jr.
J RODMAN STEELE JR AKERMAN SENTERFITT222 LAKEVIEW AVE FOURTH FLPOST OFFICE BOX 3188WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33402-3188Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | ROBOTIC WORK STATIONS FOR BENDING SHEET METALS COMPOSED OF A PRESS-BRAKE, AN ANTHROPOMORPHIC OR CYLINDRICAL OR CARTESIAN ROBOT, A SET OF GRIPPING MEMBERS, A CENTERING PLANE AND COMPLEMENTARY STOCKING MEMBERS FOR FINISHED AND SEMI-FINISHED PIECES WITH THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL MACHINES FOR WORKING METALS BY ELECTRIC SPARK EROSION, BY ELECTRO-CHEMICAL PROCESSES BY ELECTRON BEAMS AND BY LASERS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2004 | ABN0 | ABANDONMENT - INCOMPLETE RESPONSE | — |
| Mar 22, 2004 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Mar 22, 2004 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jan 13, 2004 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Aug 21, 2003 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jul 22, 2003 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jul 22, 2003 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jul 14, 2003 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jul 7, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 24, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 24, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 6, 2003 | 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. |
| Nov 13, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 27, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 27, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 25, 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 20, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 7, 2002 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 7, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |