USPTO serial 78576702
ROLLING HAMMER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SMIGA, HOWARD
- 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 ROLLING HAMMER?
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
Edmonton, Alberta, CA
Edmonton, Alberta, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Ken J. Pedersen
Ken J. Pedersen PEDERSEN & COMPANY PLLC1410 N 28TH STBOISE, ID 83703-5902UNITED 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 Rolling Hammer Inc.
- Other trademarks owned by Rolling Hammer Inc.
- Other trademarks in Class 007
- Other trademarks in Class 040
- Similar marks named ROLLING HAMMER
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2008 | 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. |
| Sep 30, 2008 | 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. |
| Jan 25, 2008 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Jan 25, 2008 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Jan 25, 2008 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Jul 25, 2007 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Jul 25, 2007 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jul 25, 2007 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Jun 14, 2007 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| May 24, 2007 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| May 24, 2007 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| May 24, 2007 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 30, 2007 | 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. |
| Mar 29, 2007 | 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. |
| Jan 25, 2007 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Jul 25, 2006 | 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. |
| May 2, 2006 | 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. |
| Apr 12, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Mar 17, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Mar 10, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 7, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Mar 7, 2006 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 7, 2006 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2006 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 7, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 27, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 27, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 12, 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. |
| Sep 12, 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. |
| Sep 9, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 7, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |