USPTO serial 78132690
RESI-TRONIC
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ABRAMS, JACQUELINE WILLETTE
- 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 RESI-TRONIC?
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.
Gerald M. Newman
GERALD M NEWMAN SCHOENBERG, FISHER, NEWMAN & ROSENBERG222 S RIVERSIDE PLZ STE 2100CHICAGO, IL 60606UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | Fluorescent Lighting Fixtures | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2013 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Sep 21, 2004 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| May 4, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| May 4, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 10, 2004 | 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. |
| Jul 18, 2003 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jun 19, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 11, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 11, 2003 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED | A 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. |
| Apr 21, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 12, 2003 | 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. |
| Dec 1, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 30, 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. |
| Sep 23, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |