USPTO serial 77173621
THE COMMERCIAL MOWER THAT REALLY KICKS GRASS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KEAM, ALEX S
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 THE COMMERCIAL MOWER THAT REALLY KICKS GRASS?
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.
Norman P. Soloway
Norman P. Soloway HAYES SOLOWAY P.C.3450 E SUNRISE DRTUCSON, AZ 85718-3235UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 007 | Power-operated lawn equipment, namely, commercial lawn mowers, excluding fixed trimmer line refills | ACTIVE | Jun 11, 2007 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 2008 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Oct 28, 2008 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Oct 28, 2008 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Sep 13, 2008 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Jun 30, 2008 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jun 30, 2008 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Dec 28, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 28, 2007 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 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. |
| Dec 7, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 7, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 6, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 29, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 24, 2007 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Oct 24, 2007 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Oct 24, 2007 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Oct 23, 2007 | EAAU | TEAS AMENDMENT OF USE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 20, 2007 | 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. |
| Aug 20, 2007 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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. |
| Aug 17, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 9, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |