Brandinium

Trademark search for:

MR CASHMAN

EXPIRED USPTO USPTO

No active United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) registrations found, based on publicly available USPTO trademark records.

Trademark records may change over time. For the most up-to-date trademark status, domain availability, and social handle checks, run a live search.

Live search · Most up-to-date results
Also check across: EU CA AU NZ CH

USPTO Filing History

Key events recorded for this trademark application

  • 2000-09-06 — Application filed
  • 2001-01-16 — Assigned to examiner
  • 2001-01-16 — Assigned to examiner
  • 2001-01-24 — Final disposition recorded
  • 2001-01-29 — Unresponsive/duplicate paper received
  • 2001-03-20 — Sec. 1(b) claim deleted
  • 2001-04-06 — Correspondence received in law office
  • 2001-08-22 — Final disposition recorded
  • 2002-02-19 — Correspondence received in law office
  • 2002-06-07 — Office action issued
  • 2002-12-12 — Paper received
  • 2002-12-12 — Correspondence received in law office
  • 2003-01-31 — Exparte appeal received at ttab
  • 2003-02-04 — Ex parte appeal-instituted
  • 2003-02-04 — Jurisdiction restored to examining attorney
  • 2003-04-09 — Office action issued
  • 2003-09-10 — Examiners statement mailed
  • 2004-03-18 — Office action issued
  • 2004-04-09 — Jurisdiction restored to examining attorney
  • 2004-04-26 — Approved for pub - principal register
  • 2004-06-23 — Notice of publication
  • 2004-07-13 — Published for opposition
  • 2004-10-05 — Registered-principal register
  • 2004-10-05 — Exparte appeal terminated
  • 2008-07-23 — Teas revoke/app/change addr of atty/dom rep received
  • 2008-07-23 — Attorney/dom.rep.revoked and/or appointed
  • 2009-03-02 — Paper received
  • 2009-04-06 — Review of correspondence complete
  • 2009-08-14 — Review of correspondence complete
  • 2010-02-17 — Teas revoke/app/change addr of atty/dom rep received
  • 2010-02-17 — Attorney/dom.rep.revoked and/or appointed
  • 2010-06-02 — Teas revoke/app/change addr of atty/dom rep received
  • 2010-06-02 — Attorney/dom.rep.revoked and/or appointed
  • 2010-06-14 — Teas change of correspondence received
  • 2010-07-08 — Teas section 8 & 15 received
  • 2010-07-27 — Case assigned to post registration paralegal
  • 2010-07-27 — Registered - sec. 8 (6-yr) accepted & sec. 15 ack.
  • 2012-09-05 — Teas revoke/app/change addr of atty/dom rep received
  • 2012-09-05 — Attorney/dom.rep.revoked and/or appointed
  • 2013-01-24 — Teas revoke/app/change addr of atty/dom rep received
  • 2013-01-24 — Attorney/dom.rep.revoked and/or appointed
  • 2013-10-09 — Teas section 8 & 9 received
  • 2013-10-09 — Registered - combined section 8 (10-yr) & sec. 9 filed
  • 2013-10-11 — Case assigned to post registration paralegal
  • 2013-10-15 — Registered - sec. 8 (10-yr) accepted/sec. 9 granted
  • 2013-10-15 — Registered and renewed (first renewal - 10 yrs)
  • 2013-10-15 — Notice of acceptance of sec. 8 & 9 - e-mailed
  • 2014-12-31 — Assignment of ownership not updated automatically
  • 2016-02-18 — Teas revoke/app/change addr of atty/dom rep received
  • 2016-02-18 — Attorney/dom.rep.revoked and/or appointed
  • 2017-07-26 — Attorney/dom.rep.revoked and/or appointed
  • 2017-07-26 — Teas revoke/app/change addr of atty/dom rep received
  • 2019-04-03 — Teas change of correspondence received
  • 2022-06-22 — Assignment of ownership not updated automatically
  • 2023-10-05 — Courtesy reminder - sec. 8 (10-yr)/sec. 9 e-mailed
  • 2025-04-18 — Cancelled sec. 8 (10-yr)/expired section 9
  • 2025-04-18 — Final status recorded

Owner Information

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd
North Ryde, NSW AU
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd
New South Wales AU
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd
New South Wales AU

Correspondent

Linda Marie Norcross Aristocrat Technologies, Inc.
10220 Aristocrat Way
Las Vegas, NV 89135
UNITED STATES

Filing Details

Filing Date:
2000-09-06
Status Date:
2025-04-18
Filing Year:
2000

Disclaimer: This page is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Trademark availability depends on jurisdiction, usage, and legal interpretation.