USPTO serial 78436219
LAS VEGAS PRO AUDIO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ELTON, DAVID JONATHAN
- 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 LAS VEGAS PRO AUDIO?
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.
PAUL H KOCHANSKI
PAUL H KOCHANSKI LERNER DAVID LITTENBERG KRUMHOLZ ET AL600 S AVE WWESTFIELD, NJ 07090-1497UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | RETAIL STORE SERVICES, INTERNET STORE SERVICES AND CONSULTATION SERVICES FEATURING PROFESSIONAL AUDIO EQUIPMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL AND NON-PROFESSIONAL USE IN PROFESSIONAL STUDIOS AND HOME STUDIOS FOR PERSONAL ENTERTAINMENT, TOURING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL AND NON-PROFESSIONAL AUDIO APPLICATIONS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 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. |
| Apr 5, 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. |
| Sep 7, 2005 | 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 7, 2005 | 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. |
| Aug 10, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 10, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 4, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 4, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 3, 2005 | 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 3, 2005 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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. |
| Jan 19, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 22, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |