Drawing for COUNTYBANK.COM

USPTO serial 78033833

COUNTYBANK.COM

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
HARDY LUDLOW, TARAH KIM
Law office
FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)

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 COUNTYBANK.COM?

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.

Justin D. Harris

JUSTIN D HARRIS DOWLING AARON & KEELER6051 N FRESNO ST STE 200FRESNO, CA 93710-5280UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
036BANKING SERVICES VIA THE INTERNETACTIVE—

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

DateCodeEventWhat it means
May 3, 2004EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
May 3, 2004EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Sep 26, 2003ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Sep 26, 2003EXPAEX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED—
Jul 3, 2003CNESEXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED—
May 6, 2003JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Feb 6, 2003CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
Jan 15, 2003JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Jan 15, 2003EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Nov 5, 2002DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Nov 4, 2002CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Nov 4, 2002PETGPETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED—
Sep 24, 2002EXAFEXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB—
Sep 12, 2002PETRPETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED—
Aug 25, 2002ABN2ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSEThe trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time.
Dec 3, 2001CNFRFINAL REFUSAL MAILEDA 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.
Oct 25, 2001CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Oct 25, 2001CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Apr 25, 2001CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION MAILEDA 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 11, 2001DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance