B. P. PYRO
Stauffer Chemical Company
| Research |
OneLook
Acronym Finder
|
| Serial Number | 72211938 |
| Registration Number | 0804945 |
| Mark Drawing Code | 1000: Typeset: Word(s)/letter(s)/number(s) |
| Attorney Name | Joseph J. DiDonato |
| Attorney Docket Number | BP-PYRO |
Timeline
| 1957-09-25 | Date of First Use |
| 1965-02-12 | Application Filed |
| 1965-12-21 | Published for Opposition |
| 1966-03-08 | Trademark Registered |
| 2016-03-08 | Renewal Date |
| 2016-03-15 | Location: GENERIC WEB UPDATE |
| 2016-03-15 | Status: Live/Registered |
| 2018-07-07 | Transaction Date |
Trademark Applicants & Owners
| Owner: |  STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY |
| Address | 380 MADISON AVE. NEW YORK DE |
| Legal Entity Type | Corporation |
| Legal Entity State | DE |
Documents
Click the blue "Refresh" button to load certificates, specimines, application, and other documents.
Attorney of Record
Good, Services, and Codes
| International Codes: | 1 |
| U.S. Codes: | 006 |
| Type Code | Type |
|---|---|
| GS0061 | SODIUM ACID PYROPHOSPHATE |
Trademark Filing History
| Description | Date | Event Coding |
|---|---|---|
| REGISTERED - SEC. 9 FILED/CHECK RECORD FOR SEC. 8 | 1985-12-02 | 1 9.AF I:Incoming Correspondence |
| REGISTERED AND RENEWED (FIRST RENEWAL - 20 YRS) | 1986-03-08 | 2 REN1 R:Renewal |
| TEAS SECTION 8 & 9 RECEIVED | 2005-06-07 | 3 E89R I:Incoming Correspondence |
| TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | 2005-06-07 | 4 REAP I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | 2005-06-07 | 5 ARAA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| REGISTERED - COMBINED SECTION 8 (10-YR) & SEC. 9 FILED | 2005-06-07 | 6 89AF I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ASSIGNED TO PARALEGAL | 2005-07-28 | 7 PLGL A:Allowance for Publication |
| REGISTERED - SEC. 8 (10-YR) ACCEPTED/SEC. 9 GRANTED | 2005-08-03 | 8 89AG O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| REGISTERED AND RENEWED (SECOND RENEWAL - 10 YRS) | 2005-08-03 | 9 RNL2 Q: |
| ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | 2006-06-21 | 10 ASCK I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | 2006-07-05 | 11 ASCK I:Incoming Correspondence |
| TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | 2006-10-18 | 12 REAP I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | 2006-10-18 | 13 ARAA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| CASE FILE IN TICRS | 2009-01-26 | 14 CFIT O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | 2009-06-10 | 15 ASCK I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | 2010-09-15 | 16 ASCK I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | 2010-10-06 | 17 ASCK I:Incoming Correspondence |
| COURTESY REMINDER - SEC. 8 (10-YR)/SEC. 9 E-MAILED | 2015-03-08 | 18 REM2 E:E-Mail |
| TEAS SECTION 8 & 9 RECEIVED | 2016-03-08 | 19 E89R I:Incoming Correspondence |
| REGISTERED - SEC. 8 (10-YR) ACCEPTED/SEC. 9 GRANTED | 2016-03-15 | 20 89AG O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| REGISTERED AND RENEWED (THIRD RENEWAL - 10 YRS) | 2016-03-15 | 21 RNL3 Q: |
| NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF SEC. 8 & 9 - E-MAILED | 2016-03-15 | 22 NA89 E:E-Mail |
| ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | 2020-02-19 | 23 ASCK I:Incoming Correspondence |
uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.
While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.
| 