USPTO serial 78617838
WATERPROOF MP3 PLAYER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KEAN, AMY C
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
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 WATERPROOF MP3 PLAYER?
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.
Kit M. Stetina
KIT M STETINA STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER75 ENTERPRISE STE 250ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656-2681UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Audio equipment, namely, MP3 players, armbands for securing the MP3 player, and earphones sold on-line and through authorized dealers | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2007 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 29, 2007 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 29, 2007 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jul 16, 2007 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Apr 5, 2007 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Apr 5, 2007 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT - COMPLETED | — |
| Mar 7, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 23, 2007 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jan 8, 2007 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jun 30, 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. |
| Jun 30, 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. |
| Jun 13, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 30, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 30, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 5, 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. |
| Dec 3, 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. |
| Nov 28, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 11, 2005 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |