USPTO serial 78246266
E VERSE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WELLS, CHRISTOPHER
- 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 E VERSE?
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.
Robert P. Lewis, Jr.
ROBERT P LEWIS JR CHOATE AND CHOATE523 W SIXTH ST STE 541LOS ANGELES, CA 90014-1225UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | COMPUTER CONSULTING SERVICES; CUSTOM COMPUTER SOFTWARE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR OTHERS; DESIGN, ENGINEERING, ANALYSIS, AND EVALUATION OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS; PROVIDING CONSULTATION ON THE USE, INTEGRATION, AND OPERATION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAMS AND COMPUTER SYSTEMS; TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS FOR OTHERS; ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND RELATED TECHNOLOGIES | ACTIVE | Jun 1, 2000 |
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 8, 2005 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Feb 8, 2005 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 8, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 6, 2004 | 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. |
| Dec 6, 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. |
| Apr 5, 2004 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL 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 2, 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 21, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 21, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 9, 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. |
| Oct 2, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |