USPTO serial 78290544
VCAD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SALEMI, DOMINICK
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - 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 VCAD?
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.
Yoncha Kundupoglu
WILLIAM H BREWSTER KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP1100 PEACHTREE ST NE STE 2800ATLANTA, GA 30309-4530UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Visual presentation equipment and conference system, namely large screen projectors that project images of data or video generated from a video source, monitors, flat panel displays, plasma screens; high frequency switchers for routing data cable TV head-stations, professional audio equipment, namely players,amplifiers and speakers; high resolution monitors and display systems for special applications; software for generating graphic images; computer screens | ACTIVE | Sep 1, 2003 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 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. |
| Apr 13, 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. |
| Sep 15, 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. |
| Sep 15, 2004 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 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. |
| Sep 13, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 30, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 30, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 25, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 31, 2004 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Mar 7, 2004 | 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. |
| Feb 22, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Jan 30, 2004 | EAAU | TEAS AMENDMENT OF USE RECEIVED | — |