Drawing for IBRIX FUSION

USPTO serial 78551588

IBRIX FUSION

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 614
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
CROSS, TRACY L
Law office
TMEG LAW OFFICE 105

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 IBRIX FUSION?

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.

KIM HERMAN

KIM HERMAN SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLPONE POST OFFICE SQUAREBOSTON, MA 02109UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
009COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR USE AS OPERATING SYSTEMS TO CONTROL DISTRIBUTED DEVICES AND OTHER COMPUTER HARDWARE; AND COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE USED FOR CONTROLLING AND MANAGING THE STORAGE OF DATA AND INFORMATION ON COMPUTER STORAGE DEVICES AND CLUSTERED COMPUTERSACTIVEOct 1, 2002

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

DateCodeEventWhat it means
Oct 15, 2007PETDPETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED—
Oct 2, 2007APETASSIGNED TO PETITION STAFF—
Sep 13, 2007PETRPETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED—
Sep 13, 2007MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
Aug 20, 2007TCCATEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED—
Sep 25, 2006MAB2ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPONDThe 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 24, 2006ABN2ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSEThe 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.
Feb 23, 2006GNRTNON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILEDA 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 23, 2006CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION WRITTENA 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 11, 2006ACECAMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED—
Dec 22, 2005CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Dec 22, 2005FAXXFAX RECEIVED—
Dec 22, 2005FAXXFAX RECEIVED—
Aug 26, 2005GNRTNON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILEDA 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.
Aug 26, 2005CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION WRITTENA 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.
Aug 20, 2005DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Jan 31, 2005NWAPNEW APPLICATION ENTERED—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance