USPTO serial 78254362
ETACS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KRISP, JENNIFER MARIE
- 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 ETACS?
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.
Jeffrey H. Kaufman
JEFFREY H KAUFMAN OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUST1940 DUKE STALEXANDRIA, VA 22314UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Electronic time and alarm control systems for automobiles, namely, systems comprised of computers, computer display screens, computer keypads, computer data entry touch screens, electronic sensors, warning lights, and electronic warning buzzers, for setting user preferences for the operation of automobile alarms, door locks, windshield wipers and interior lights | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 21, 2006 | 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. |
| Jul 21, 2006 | 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. |
| Dec 10, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 10, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 10, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jun 10, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 7, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 7, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 26, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 26, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 21, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 29, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 29, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 23, 2004 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 17, 2004 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 21, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 21, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 21, 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 13, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 18, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 15, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 15, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |