USPTO serial 78209057
TIGERFLEX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KON, ELISSA GARBER
- Law office
- PETITIONS OFFICE
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 TIGERFLEX?
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
Elk Grove Village, IL
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
George H. Kobayashi
GEORGE H KOBAYASHI MASUDA, FUNAI, EIFERT & MITCHELL LTDONE E WACKER DR STE 3200CHICAGO, IL 60601-2002UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 017 | PVC and rubber hose for industrial and commercial applications | ACTIVE | Apr 1, 1974 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1, 2005 | UNDN | UNDELIVERABLE MAIL - NO ACTION TAKEN | — |
| Nov 21, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 2, 2005 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Aug 2, 2005 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Jun 27, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 16, 2005 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Mar 28, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 17, 2005 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Oct 22, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 22, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 22, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 23, 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. |
| Jan 23, 2004 | 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. |
| Jan 14, 2004 | EMRV | EMAIL RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 13, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 13, 2004 | EMRV | EMAIL RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 12, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 4, 2003 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 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. |
| Jul 12, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |