USPTO serial 77090563
COURTING SMARTER SOLUTIONS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RICHARDS, LESLIE
- 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 COURTING SMARTER SOLUTIONS?
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.
Sean C. Fifield
SEAN C. FIFIELD LORD, BISSELL & BROOK LLP111 S WACKER DRCHICAGO, IL 60606-4302UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 016 | Printed publications, namely, newsletters, brochures and pamphlets in the field of law | ACTIVE | — |
| 041 | Conducting seminars, workshops and training courses in the field of law | ACTIVE | — |
| 045 | Legal services; Providing information in the field of law by means of the Internet | 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.
- Other trademarks owned by Lord, Bissell & Brook LLP
- Other trademarks owned by Lord, Bissell & Brook LLP
- Other trademarks in Class 016
- Other trademarks in Class 041
- Other trademarks in Class 045
- Similar marks named COURTING SMARTER SOLUTIONS
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2008 | 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. |
| Jun 4, 2008 | 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. |
| Oct 2, 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. |
| Jul 10, 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. |
| Jun 20, 2007 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jun 1, 2007 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jun 1, 2007 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| May 31, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| May 31, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 31, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 14, 2007 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This 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. |
| May 12, 2007 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| May 12, 2007 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| May 11, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 29, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |