Drawing for SAND GUZZLER

USPTO serial 76639252

SAND GUZZLER

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
KEAN, AMY C
Law office
TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED

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 SAND GUZZLER?

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.

Michael I. Kroll

MICHAEL I KROLL171 STILLWELL LNSYOSSET, NY 11791-1913UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
007EARTH MOVING AND SAND SORTING MACHINERY, NAMELY, MUD PUMPS, WELL DRILLING MACHINES, AND MUD AND SAND SEPARATOR TANKSACTIVE—

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

DateCodeEventWhat it means
Dec 3, 2007MAB3ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Dec 1, 2007ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Dec 1, 2007EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Sep 14, 2007EXPAEX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED—
May 4, 2007CNESEXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED—
May 4, 2007CNESEXAMINERS STATEMENT - COMPLETED—
Apr 3, 2007JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Jan 26, 2007TROATEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVEDThis event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action.
Jan 26, 2007EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Jan 26, 2007EXAFEXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB—
Oct 16, 2006DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Jul 26, 2006CNFRFINAL REFUSAL MAILEDA 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.
Jul 25, 2006CNFRFINAL REFUSAL WRITTENA 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.
Jul 3, 2006TEMETEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED—
Jun 22, 2006CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Jun 22, 2006TROATEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVEDThis event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action.
Dec 30, 2005CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION MAILEDA 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.
Dec 29, 2005CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION WRITTENA 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.
Dec 16, 2005DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Jun 3, 2005NWAPNEW APPLICATION ENTERED—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance