USPTO serial 76452335
NETSTAMPS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GRIFFIN, JAMES
- Law office
- PETITIONS OFFICE
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 NETSTAMPS?
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
Santa Monica, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Gary A. Hecker
GARY A HECKER THE HECKER LAW GRP1925 CENTURY PARK E STE 2300LOS ANGELES, CA 90067UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Computer software, namely, software for generating and printing information on documents and other products,using secure forms of digital technology | ACTIVE | Jul 17, 2002 |
| 040 | Conversion and transfer of data from one medium to another, namely, conversion and transfer of digital data to tangible media | ACTIVE | Jul 17, 2002 |
| 042 | Computer services, namely, providing services for users to convert and transfer data from one medium to another,namely, convert and transfer digital data to tangible media | ACTIVE | Jul 17, 2002 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2005 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Jun 27, 2005 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 27, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 18, 2005 | 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, 2005 | 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 21, 2004 | CNRU | DISAPPROVAL - AMENDMENT TO USE MAILED | — |
| Jun 8, 2004 | AAUD | AMENDMENT OF ALLEGED USE DISAPPROVED | — |
| May 20, 2004 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Apr 20, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 20, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 15, 2004 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Apr 15, 2004 | EAAU | TEAS AMENDMENT OF USE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 17, 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. |
| Sep 12, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Aug 18, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 13, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 13, 2003 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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 7, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |