USPTO serial 79038998
SYLODYN
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 402
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MORRIS, KRISTINA KLOIBER
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 SYLODYN?
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.
Debra S. Serota
Debra S. Serota Fish & Richardson P.C.P.O. Box 1022Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 017 | Mats and sheets made from compact and microcellular polyurethane or rubber elasthanes used for vibration mitigation and for noise mitigation | SECTION 70 - CANCELLED | — |
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 30, 2017 | DENA | NOTIFICATION OF EFFECT OF CANCELLATION OF INTL REG E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 29, 2017 | DETH | DEATH OF INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION | — |
| Dec 18, 2009 | FINT | FINAL DECISION TRANSACTION PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Nov 25, 2009 | FICS | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE SENT TO IB | — |
| Nov 25, 2009 | FICR | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Dec 25, 2008 | OPNX | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION - PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Dec 11, 2008 | OPNS | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION SENT TO IB | — |
| Dec 11, 2008 | OPNR | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Nov 25, 2008 | 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. |
| Nov 25, 2008 | 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. |
| May 6, 2008 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 25, 2008 | 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 24, 2008 | 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. |
| Apr 3, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 3, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 3, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Apr 2, 2008 | 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 2, 2008 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Apr 2, 2008 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 20, 2008 | 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. |
| Feb 20, 2008 | 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. |
| Aug 3, 2007 | RFNT | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Jul 16, 2007 | RFCS | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED - REFUSAL SENT TO IB | — |
| Jul 16, 2007 | RFRR | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY MPU | — |
| Jul 14, 2007 | RFCR | NON-FINAL ACTION (IB REFUSAL) PREPARED FOR REVIEW | — |
| Jul 13, 2007 | 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. |
| Jul 6, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 6, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |
| Jul 5, 2007 | REPR | SN ASSIGNED FOR SECT 66A APPL FROM IB | — |