USPTO serial 77939858
C TECH
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RITTNER, HANNO I
- 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 C TECH?
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
Oceanside, CA
Oceanside, CA
Oceanside, CA
Oceanside, CA
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 002 | Automotive and industrial paints; automotive clear coat protectants; industrial clear coating for metal surfaces; industrial and automotive coatings, namely, clear finishes for exterior use on a variety of substrates, and, clear coatings used in the nature of paint | ACTIVE | — |
| 003 | Automotive and industrial abrasives, namely, buffing compounds, abrasive pastes, abrasive rolls, abrasive sheets and strips, abrasive sand, and flexible abrasives | 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 Conti, Peter
- Other trademarks owned by Conti, Peter
- Other trademarks owned by Bertrem, Louis
- Other trademarks owned by Bertrem, Louis
- Other trademarks in Class 002
- Other trademarks in Class 003
- Similar marks named C TECH
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 2011 | 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. |
| Aug 22, 2011 | 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. |
| Jan 18, 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. |
| Dec 3, 2010 | ETOP | EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE PROCESS - TERMINATED | — |
| Aug 17, 2010 | ETOF | EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 20, 2010 | NPUB | OFFICIAL GAZETTE PUBLICATION CONFIRMATION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2010 | 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 12, 2010 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jun 11, 2010 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jun 11, 2010 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 11, 2010 | GNEN | NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 11, 2010 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 11, 2010 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 11, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 11, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 11, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 2, 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. |
| May 28, 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. |
| May 28, 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. |
| May 28, 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. |
| May 24, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 25, 2010 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Feb 24, 2010 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |