USPTO serial 78047304
EMPIRE TECHNOLOGIES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MARTIN, EUGENIA K
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with EMPIRE TECHNOLOGIES?
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.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Chris G. Garber
CHRIS G GARBER KLINEDINST, FLIEHMAN & MCKILLOP501 W BROADWAYSTE 600SAN DIEGO, CA 92101Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | COMPUTER SERVICES, NAMELY, CREATING AND MAINTAINING WEB SITES FOR OTHERS, DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING NETWORK WEB PAGES FOR OTHERS, DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING WEB SITES FOR OTHERS, COMPUTER SOFTWARE DESIGN FOR OTHERS, CREATING AND DESIGNING COMPUTER DATABASES FOR OTHERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYSIS; COMPUTER CONSULTATION; COMPUTER PROGRAMMING AND SOFTWARE DESIGN FOR OTHERS; HOSTING OF WEBSITES FOR OTHERS; ELECTRONIC COMMERCE SERVICES, NAMELY, THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE SOFTWARE FOR OTHERS | ACTIVE | Jan 1, 1997 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 31, 2005 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | The 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. |
| Mar 31, 2005 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The 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. |
| Aug 26, 2004 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION 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. |
| Aug 23, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 24, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 2, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 13, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 2, 2001 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION 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. |
| Jun 27, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |