USPTO serial 86781143
SMART HOME TECHNOLOGIES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ELTON, DAVID JONATHAN
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with SMART HOME TECHNOLOGIES?
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.
John C. Stringham
JOHN C. STRINGHAM Workman Nydegger60 E South Temple Ste 1000Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1011UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | Retail services by direct solicitation by sales agents in the field of burglar, trouble, security and fire alarm systems, building control, automation systems, HVAC automation and monitoring systems, energy management systems, lighting system controls, door locking systems, namely, those which are controlled and monitored through an alarm system panel or remotely through wireless communication, CCTV and video cameras; Door to door shopping in the field of burglar, trouble, security and /or fire alarms, building control, security and automation systems, HVAC automation and monitoring systems, energy management systems, lighting system controls, door locking systems, namely, those which are controlled and monitored through an alarm system panel or remotely through wireless communication, CCTV and video cameras | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2024 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Apr 25, 2017 | 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 25, 2017 | 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 26, 2016 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Sep 26, 2016 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-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. |
| Sep 26, 2016 | 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. |
| Aug 31, 2016 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Aug 30, 2016 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Aug 9, 2016 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 9, 2016 | ERTD | TEAS REQUEST TO DIVIDE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 6, 2016 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 5, 2016 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 5, 2016 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 5, 2016 | 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. |
| Jun 15, 2016 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Jun 8, 2016 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Mar 23, 2016 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Feb 5, 2016 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF 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. |
| Feb 5, 2016 | 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. |
| Feb 5, 2016 | 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. |
| Jan 27, 2016 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 13, 2015 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Oct 10, 2015 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |