USPTO serial 78522970
RF/D
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RADEMACHER, MARK A
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - 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 RF/D?
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.
Joel D. Voelzke
JOEL D VOELZKE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW OFFICE OF JOEL400 CORPORATE POINTE STE 300CULVER CITY, CA 90230UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Wireless communications equipment, namely - integrated circuit cores for use in wireless communications and wireless communication equipment and apparatus; reconfigurable processors for use in wireless communication handsets and network equipment in the field of high frequency communications | ACTIVE | May 1, 2006 |
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 9, 2007 | 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. |
| Mar 9, 2007 | 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. |
| Jul 24, 2006 | 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 24, 2006 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Jul 24, 2006 | 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. |
| Jul 3, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 29, 2006 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Jun 5, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 5, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 1, 2006 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Jun 1, 2006 | EAAU | TEAS AMENDMENT OF USE RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 3, 2006 | 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 3, 2006 | 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. |
| Jan 3, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 14, 2005 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 14, 2005 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 14, 2005 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 11, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 11, 2005 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 10, 2005 | GAUD | NOTICE OF UNRESPONSIVE AMENDMENT - E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 10, 2005 | NAUD | REPORT UNRESPONSIVE AMENDMENT - COMPLETED | — |
| Nov 19, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 4, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 4, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 6, 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. |
| Jul 6, 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. |
| Jun 28, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 3, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |
| Nov 30, 2004 | AMPX | PRELIMINARY/VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT - ENTERED | — |
| Nov 30, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — |