Drawing for FINGERSURFER

USPTO serial 77490467

FINGERSURFER

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 606
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
CHARLON, BARNEY
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 FINGERSURFER?

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.

Jon E. Holland

Jon E. Holland Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne, P.C.P.O. Box 2087Huntsville, AL 35804UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
009Computer software for accessing and browsing the InternetACTIVE—
038Streaming of audio and video material on the internet; providing an on-line forum featuring information about mobile communication products and devices for accessing the internet; broadcasting television programs and movies via the internet; and providing on-line chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages concerning wireless communication products and internet browsing devicesACTIVE—

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

Latest event (MAB6): 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.

DateCodeEventWhat it means
Mar 7, 2011MAB6ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILEDThe 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.
Mar 7, 2011ABN6ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILEDThe 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.
Aug 7, 2010EXRANOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED—
Aug 6, 2010EX2GSOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED—
Aug 4, 2010EXT2SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED—
Aug 4, 2010EEXTSOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVEDThe 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.
Mar 12, 2010EX1GSOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED—
Mar 12, 2010AITUCASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL—
Feb 4, 2010EXT1SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED—
Feb 4, 2010EEXTSOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVEDThe 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.
Aug 4, 2009NOAMNOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANTA 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.
May 12, 2009PUBOPUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITIONYour 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.
Apr 22, 2009NPUBNOTICE OF PUBLICATION—
Apr 8, 2009PREVLAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED—
Apr 4, 2009ALIEASSIGNED TO LIE—
Apr 4, 2009CNSAAPPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER—
Apr 4, 2009XAECEXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED—
Apr 2, 2009XAECEXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED—
Apr 2, 2009GNENNOTIFICATION OF EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED—
Apr 2, 2009GNEAEXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED—
Apr 2, 2009CNEAEXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN—
Mar 14, 2009TEMETEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED—
Mar 13, 2009TCCATEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED—
Mar 13, 2009CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Mar 13, 2009TROATEAS 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.
Sep 17, 2008CPRAPRIORITY ACTION MAILEDA 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.
Sep 16, 2008CPRAPRIORITY ACTION WRITTENA 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.
Sep 15, 2008DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Jun 10, 2008MPMKNOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED—
Jun 9, 2008NWAPNEW APPLICATION ENTERED—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance