USPTO serial 78554938
SENECA ERIE CASINO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FAINT, MARY CATHERINE
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE SECTION
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 SENECA ERIE CASINO?
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.
Karol A. Kepchar, Esq.
KAROL A KEPCHAR ESQ AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE NWWASHINGTON, DC 20036UNITED STATESGoods and services
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.
- Other trademarks owned by Seneca Gaming Corporation
- Other trademarks owned by Seneca Gaming Corporation
- Other trademarks in Class 035
- Other trademarks in Class 041
- Other trademarks in Class 043
- Similar marks named SENECA ERIE CASINO
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2006 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Aug 31, 2006 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Dec 27, 2005 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Oct 4, 2005 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| Sep 14, 2005 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jun 16, 2005 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Jun 10, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 8, 2005 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jun 8, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 27, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 27, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 30, 2005 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Mar 29, 2005 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Mar 24, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 4, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |