USPTO serial 77236856
FIDGET
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WOOD, CAROLINE
- 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 FIDGET?
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.
Paul J. Reilly, Robert Neuner, Bradley B. Geist, Russell H. Falconer, Doreen L. Costa, Robert C. Scheinfeld, Gary M. Butter, Lisa B. Kole, Neil P. Sirota, Paul A. Ragusa, Jeffrey D. Sullivan, Daniel J. Hulseberg, Paul F. Fehlner, Eliot D. Williams, Walter
PAUL J. REILLY BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.30 ROCKEFELLER PLZ FL 44NEW YORK, NY 10112-0015UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Wireless phones with music and music video downloading and streaming capabilities and basic voice and text messaging capabilities | 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 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
- Other trademarks owned by Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
- Other trademarks in Class 009
- Similar marks named FIDGET
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 14, 2010 | 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 14, 2010 | 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 15, 2009 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Oct 14, 2009 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Oct 14, 2009 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| May 13, 2009 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| May 13, 2009 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| May 13, 2009 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Nov 17, 2008 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Nov 17, 2008 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Nov 13, 2008 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Nov 13, 2008 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| May 13, 2008 | 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. |
| Feb 19, 2008 | 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. |
| Jan 30, 2008 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jan 11, 2008 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jan 11, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 27, 2007 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Nov 27, 2007 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 27, 2007 | GNEN | NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 27, 2007 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 27, 2007 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 5, 2007 | GPRN | NOTIFICATION OF 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. |
| Nov 5, 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. |
| Nov 5, 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. |
| Oct 29, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 27, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |