USPTO serial 79066711
PULSE-CHLORINATION
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 402
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BLAIR, JASON
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 104 - 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 PULSE-CHLORINATION?
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
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 040 | Treatment of materials; chemical purification of cooling-water systems; combating shell-fish in industrial cooling-water systems | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2019 | DENA | NOTIFICATION OF EFFECT OF CANCELLATION OF INTL REG MAILED | — |
| Aug 29, 2019 | DETH | DEATH OF INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION | — |
| Nov 15, 2015 | NREP | NEW REPRESENTATIVE AT IB RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 18, 2013 | NREP | NEW REPRESENTATIVE AT IB RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 1, 2011 | FINT | FINAL DECISION TRANSACTION PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Dec 10, 2010 | FICS | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE SENT TO IB | — |
| Dec 10, 2010 | FICR | FINAL DISPOSITION NOTICE CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Oct 1, 2010 | OPNX | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION - PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| Sep 16, 2010 | OPNS | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION SENT TO IB | — |
| Sep 16, 2010 | OPNR | NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OPPOSITION CREATED, TO BE SENT TO IB | — |
| Dec 10, 2009 | 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. |
| Dec 10, 2009 | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2009 | RFNT | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY IB | — |
| May 14, 2009 | RFCS | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED - REFUSAL SENT TO IB | — |
| May 14, 2009 | RFRR | REFUSAL PROCESSED BY MPU | — |
| May 14, 2009 | RFCR | NON-FINAL ACTION (IB REFUSAL) PREPARED FOR REVIEW | — |
| May 13, 2009 | 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. |
| Apr 21, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 21, 2009 | MAFR | APPLICATION FILING RECEIPT MAILED | — |
| Apr 17, 2009 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Apr 16, 2009 | REPR | SN ASSIGNED FOR SECT 66A APPL FROM IB | — |