USPTO serial 78069875
MATRIPLEXER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KRISP, JENNIFER MARIE
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
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 MATRIPLEXER?
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.
J. Anthony Rolfe
J ANTHONY ROLFE LA JOLLAWENTHUR & CHACHAS4180 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR STE 500LA JOLLA, CA 92037-1474Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | "Burglar alarms; security systems, namely, closed circuit television cameras, video and surveillance cameras; video monitors; video systems, namely digital video recorders; digital storage systems for digital video recorders, namely CD-ROMs, DVDs."; time-lapse digital video recorders for use with closed circuit television and surveillance systems, namely, video cameras, transmitters, receivers, multiplexers, quads, remote video camera controllers, and matrix switchers; facilities management software, namely, software for computer control over closed circuit cameras and video cameras, access and security systems | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2003 | 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. |
| Oct 8, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 11, 2002 | 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. |
| Mar 5, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 5, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 2, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 6, 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. |
| Aug 23, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |