USPTO serial 78604017
NEUSTAR
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GAYNOR, BARBARA ANNE
- 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 NEUSTAR?
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.
Peter J. Riebling
Peter J. Riebling Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP2900 K Street, N.W.Suite 200Washington, DC 20007-5118Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | Technical consultation services related to legal compliance regarding the provision of subscriber information, call detail records, and other customer-related information in response to subpoenas, court orders and search warrants served by law enforcement, governmental entities, and attorneys in civil proceedings; technical consultation related to preparation of responses to court-ordered electronic surveillance, wiretapping, pen registers and trap and trace devices; computer disaster recovery planning services | ACTIVE | — |
| 045 | Provision of nearly real-time fraud management and detection services identifying customer fraud, theft, and unaccounted loss of business | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2010 | 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. |
| Apr 5, 2010 | 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. |
| Sep 23, 2009 | EX5G | SOU EXTENSION 5 GRANTED | — |
| Sep 23, 2009 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Sep 8, 2009 | 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. |
| Sep 6, 2009 | EXT5 | SOU EXTENSION 5 FILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Mar 6, 2009 | 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. |
| Nov 3, 2008 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 29, 2008 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 29, 2008 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Aug 29, 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. |
| Aug 28, 2008 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 5, 2008 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Mar 5, 2008 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Mar 5, 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. |
| Aug 27, 2007 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 27, 2007 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Aug 27, 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 5, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 6, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 12, 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. |
| Nov 22, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Oct 21, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Oct 19, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 6, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Oct 6, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Oct 5, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 5, 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. |
| Apr 10, 2006 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL 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. |
| Apr 8, 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 17, 2006 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 6, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 6, 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. |
| Aug 8, 2005 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION 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. |
| Aug 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. |
| Aug 2, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 14, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |