USPTO serial 77916776
FEATURE GUARANTEE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WILKE, JOHN
- 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 FEATURE GUARANTEE?
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.
Stephen C. Beuerle
Stephen C. Beuerle Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP525 B StreetSuite 2200San Diego, CA 92101Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Computer game software, namely, computer game software for gambling or gaming devices, computer game software for physical and virtual game devices, gaming software modules for incorporation on electro-mechanical and/or video slot, poker and other wagering machines, gaming software upgrade packages for incorporation on electro-mechanical and/or video slot, poker and wagering machines, secondary electronic gaming systems for inclusion on mechanical, electro-mechanical video, slot, poker and wagering machines, gaming monitoring systems for inclusion on mechanical, electro-mechanical and video slot, poker and other wagering machines; gaming machines for gambling, namely, mechanical, electro-mechanical and video slot machines, mechanical, electro-mechanical and video poker machines, mechanical, electro-mechanical and video wagering machines | 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.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2013 | 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. |
| Apr 8, 2013 | 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. |
| Aug 15, 2012 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 14, 2012 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 2, 2012 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Aug 2, 2012 | 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. |
| Mar 20, 2012 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 19, 2012 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Mar 19, 2012 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Feb 27, 2012 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Feb 27, 2012 | 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. |
| Sep 6, 2011 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Sep 6, 2011 | COAR | TEAS CHANGE OF OWNER ADDRESS RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 1, 2011 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 30, 2011 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 30, 2011 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Aug 30, 2011 | 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. |
| Mar 8, 2011 | NOAM | NOA E-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. |
| Jan 11, 2011 | NPUB | OFFICIAL GAZETTE PUBLICATION CONFIRMATION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 11, 2011 | 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. |
| Dec 3, 2010 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Dec 2, 2010 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Dec 2, 2010 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 2, 2010 | GNEN | NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 2, 2010 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 2, 2010 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 29, 2010 | 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 29, 2010 | 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 29, 2010 | 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. |
| Nov 23, 2010 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Nov 12, 2010 | PBCR | WITHDRAWN FROM PUB - OG REVIEW QUERY | — |
| Nov 4, 2010 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Nov 4, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 25, 2010 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Oct 20, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 20, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 20, 2010 | 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. |
| Aug 11, 2010 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 21, 2010 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Apr 21, 2010 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Apr 21, 2010 | 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. |
| Apr 20, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 26, 2010 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Jan 25, 2010 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |