USPTO serial 78534538
RANGEMAX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CHOE, KELLY
- 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 RANGEMAX?
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
Santa Clara, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Aaron Hendelman
AARON HENDELMAN WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI650 PAGE MILL RDPALO ALTO, CA 94304-1050UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | routers | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2007 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Nov 25, 2006 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Oct 18, 2006 | APET | ASSIGNED TO PETITION STAFF | — |
| Sep 27, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 26, 2006 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 26, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 26, 2006 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Sep 26, 2006 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 21, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 19, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 7, 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. |
| Mar 7, 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. |
| Feb 10, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 25, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 25, 2006 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Jul 25, 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 25, 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. |
| Jul 22, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 30, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |