USPTO serial 78858911
THOUGHTLAB
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MILTON, PRISCILLA
- 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 THOUGHTLAB?
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
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
WINSTON V. BEARD
WINSTON V. BEARD BEARD STCLAIR2105 CORONADOIDAHO FALLS, ID 83404UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Custom software for ensuring security of e-commerce transactions, for conducting an e-commerce business to allow users to perform electronic business transactions, and for conducting online auctions; Custom computer software for database design and integration with web applications; Custom software for web site content management; Custom software for protection of underlying databases which allow a user to visualize complex underlying databases of information, and allow users of Internet or intranet web applications or wireless technology to quickly access string-based information stored in underlying databases; Custom computer software for use in communication management; Custom computer software for web application design, for use in developing web applications that conduct functional testing and load testing for web applications and are used to identify and remediate security defects within web applications; Custom computer software for use with web hosting; Custom computer software for managing and administering emails, screening and blocking unwanted emails | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2009 | 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. |
| May 11, 2009 | 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 4, 2008 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 4, 2008 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Nov 21, 2008 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Nov 21, 2008 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Nov 21, 2008 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 10, 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. |
| Nov 10, 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. |
| Oct 9, 2008 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Apr 9, 2008 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Apr 9, 2008 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Apr 9, 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. |
| Oct 9, 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. |
| Jul 17, 2007 | 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. |
| Jun 27, 2007 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| May 1, 2007 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Apr 28, 2007 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Apr 19, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 19, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 12, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 12, 2007 | 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 12, 2007 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Apr 12, 2007 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 11, 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 11, 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 20, 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 20, 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 19, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 19, 2006 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Apr 18, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |