USPTO serial 78853914
ROLLERCARDS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- YARD, JOHN S
- Law office
- PETITIONS OFFICE
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 ROLLERCARDS?
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
Thousand Oaks, CA
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 016 | word mark-- roller cards Goods and Services IC 016; US002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050; GandS-- folding promotionalcards that are useful in a number of ways including-- calling cards, photo cards, promotional cards, promotional deck, advertising cards, educational cards and collectible cards; Roller card faces are designed to fold-up from inter-linked faces normally numbering four; These plurality of card faces work best as a communication and promotional tool when printed with interplaying graphics and messaging; Users are able to roll-over the card leaf faces again and again creating a fluid visual experience | ACTIVE | Nov 5, 2005 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2007 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Sep 7, 2007 | APET | ASSIGNED TO PETITION STAFF | — |
| Jun 19, 2007 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| May 2, 2007 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| May 2, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 13, 2007 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | The 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. |
| Apr 13, 2007 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The 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 15, 2006 | 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 15, 2006 | 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 14, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 11, 2006 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Apr 10, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |