USPTO serial 78967304
INTELLIGENT ROLL UP
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- VALLILLO, MELISSA C
- 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 INTELLIGENT ROLL UP?
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
Dunieres, FR
Dunieres, FR
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
George A. Pelletier, Jr.
George A. Pelletier, Jr. CANTOR COLBURN LLP20 Church Street22nd FloorHartford, CT 06103Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 006 | Metal doors for industrial buildings or factories, metal doors for workshops, depots, hangars, shops, warehouses; metal protective fire doors for buildings; metal rigid doors; metal vertically or laterally opening doors | ACTIVE | — |
| 019 | Non-metal doors for industrial buildings or factories, non-metal doors for workshops, depots, hangars, shops, warehouses; non-metal protective fire doors for buildings; non-metal rigid doors; non-metal flexible doors, non-metal accordion doors, non-metal doors with rollers; non-metal vertical doors and non-metal lateral doors, non-metal transparent doors and non-metal curtain doors as building materials for buildings and factories | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 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. |
| Mar 15, 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. |
| Jul 23, 2009 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Jul 21, 2009 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Jul 21, 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. |
| Mar 16, 2009 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Mar 16, 2009 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Feb 5, 2009 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 5, 2009 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Feb 5, 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. |
| Feb 2, 2009 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 2, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 14, 2008 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Jul 14, 2008 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jul 14, 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. |
| Jan 18, 2008 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Jan 18, 2008 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Jan 18, 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 7, 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. |
| May 15, 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. |
| Apr 25, 2007 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Mar 15, 2007 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Mar 15, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 20, 2007 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Feb 20, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 20, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 20, 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. |
| Jan 31, 2007 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Jan 31, 2007 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Jan 24, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 11, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |