SCORPION
Mason, Victor B.
| Research |
OneLook
Acronym Finder
|
| Serial Number | 78618286 |
| Mark Drawing Code | 4000: Illustration: Drawing with word(s)/letter(s)/number(s) in Block form |
| Attorney Name | Daniel P. Dooley |
| Attorney Docket Number | OKC00714 |
| Law Office Assigned | L60 |
| Employee Name | ELTON, DAVID JONATHAN |
Timeline
| 2004-01-04 | Date of First Use |
| 2005-04-27 | Application Filed |
| 2007-11-26 | Abandon |
| 2007-11-26 | Location: TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED |
| 2007-11-26 | Status: Dead/Abandoned |
| 2018-07-08 | Transaction Date |
Trademark Applicants & Owners
| Owner: |  Mason, Victor B. |
| Address | Suite 2 21065 Bear Valley Road Apple Valley CA US 92308 |
| Legal Entity Type | Individual |
| Legal Entity State | US |
Documents
Click the blue "Refresh" button to load certificates, specimines, application, and other documents.
Attorney of Record
Good, Services, and Codes
| International Codes: | 9 |
| U.S. Codes: | 021,023,026,036,038 |
| Type Code | Type |
|---|---|
| GS0091 | Custom built, made-to-order, amplifiers, namely, vacuum tube musical instrument amplifiers |
Trademark Filing History
| Description | Date | Event Coding |
|---|---|---|
| NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM | 2005-05-11 | 1 NWAP I:Incoming Correspondence |
| FAX RECEIVED | 2005-11-11 | 2 FAXX I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | 2005-11-26 | 3 DOCK D:Assigned to Examiner |
| NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 2005-11-26 | 4 CNRT R:Renewal |
| NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | 2005-11-28 | 5 CNRT F:First Action |
| TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | 2006-04-27 | 6 TROA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | 2006-04-27 | 7 CRFA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | 2006-06-05 | 8 TEME I:Incoming Correspondence |
| FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 2006-06-29 | 9 CNFR R:Renewal |
| FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | 2006-06-30 | 10 CNFR O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | 2006-12-29 | 11 EXAF T:TTAB Proceeding |
| JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | 2006-12-29 | 12 JURT T:TTAB Proceeding |
| EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | 2006-12-29 | 13 EXPI T:TTAB Proceeding |
| TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | 2006-12-29 | 14 TROA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | 2007-01-22 | 15 CNCF S: |
| CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | 2006-12-29 | 16 CRFA I:Incoming Correspondence |
| TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | 2007-01-20 | 17 TEME I:Incoming Correspondence |
| ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON MAILED | 2007-01-22 | 18 RECD O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | 2007-04-30 | 19 JURT T:TTAB Proceeding |
| EXAMINERS STATEMENT - COMPLETED | 2007-06-21 | 20 CNES R:Renewal |
| EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | 2007-06-22 | 21 CNES O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | 2007-09-11 | 22 EXPA T:TTAB Proceeding |
| EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | 2007-11-26 | 23 EXPT T:TTAB Proceeding |
| ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | 2007-11-26 | 24 ABN3 O:Outgoing Correspondence |
| ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | 2007-11-26 | 25 MAB3 O:Outgoing Correspondence |
Similar Marks
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.
| 