USPTO serial 78075355
TV BY CHOICE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- PERRY, KIMBERLY B
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 112 - 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 TV BY CHOICE?
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.
Francis J. Duffin
FRANCIS J DUFFIN WIGGIN & DANA LLPONE CENTURY TWRP O BOX 1832NEW HAVEN, CT 06508-1832Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Cable distribution device, namely, programmable switch with a reader for smart cards; and encoded smart cards for use in the field of cable distribution | ACTIVE | — |
| 035 | Business market consultation in the field of cable distribution devices and smart cards for cable distribution | 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 DYNASYS-ENGENHARIA E TELECOMUNICACOES, S.A.
- Other trademarks owned by TECH4CABLE INC.
- Other trademarks in Class 009
- Other trademarks in Class 035
- Similar marks named TV BY CHOICE
- Prosecution event MAB2 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 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. |
| Nov 17, 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. |
| Apr 12, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 12, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 27, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 26, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 1, 2004 | EMRV | EMAIL RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 30, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 30, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 30, 2004 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 30, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 6, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 20, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 18, 2003 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 5, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 14, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 12, 2002 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 31, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 22, 2002 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 14, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 13, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 22, 2001 | 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. |
| Sep 11, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |