Brandinium

Trademark search for:

WAGERWORKS

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

  • 2000-08-11 — Application filed
  • 2000-12-26 — Preliminary/voluntary amendment - entered
  • 2001-02-13 — Final disposition recorded
  • 2001-08-17 — Correspondence received in law office
  • 2001-12-18 — Final disposition recorded
  • 2002-01-25 — Correspondence received in law office
  • 2002-06-04 — Examiners amendment mailed
  • 2002-06-07 — Approved for pub - principal register
  • 2002-10-09 — Notice of publication
  • 2002-10-29 — Published for opposition
  • 2003-01-21 — Noa mailed - sou required from applicant
  • 2003-07-15 — Paper received
  • 2003-07-15 — Sou extension 1 filed
  • 2003-08-20 — Sou extension 1 granted
  • 2004-01-21 — Sou teas extension received
  • 2004-01-21 — Sou extension 2 filed
  • 2004-02-10 — Sou extension 2 granted
  • 2004-04-19 — Paper received
  • 2004-04-26 — Assigned to examiner
  • 2004-05-11 — Paper received
  • 2004-05-13 — Paper received
  • 2004-07-07 — Sou teas extension received
  • 2004-07-07 — Sou extension 3 filed
  • 2004-07-14 — Case file in ticrs
  • 2004-08-02 — Sou extension 3 granted
  • 2004-08-17 — Paper received
  • 2004-12-29 — Teas change of correspondence received
  • 2005-01-06 — Sou teas extension received
  • 2005-01-06 — Sou extension 4 filed
  • 2005-01-25 — Sou extension 4 granted
  • 2005-07-21 — Sou extension 5 filed
  • 2005-09-27 — Application abandoned
  • 2005-09-27 — Application abandoned
  • 2005-10-10 — Teas revoke/app/change addr of atty/dom rep received
  • 2005-10-10 — Attorney/dom.rep.revoked and/or appointed
  • 2005-10-10 — Teas petition to revive received
  • 2005-10-10 — Petition to revive-granted
  • 2005-10-10 — Sou extension received with teas petition
  • 2005-10-20 — Sou extension 5 granted
  • 2006-01-17 — Teas statement of use received
  • 2006-01-17 — Use amendment filed
  • 2006-02-08 — Statement of use processing complete
  • 2006-03-01 — Allowed principal register - sou accepted
  • 2006-03-03 — Assigned to lie
  • 2006-03-07 — Law office registration review completed
  • 2006-04-18 — Registered-principal register
  • 2006-05-24 — Automatic update of assignment of ownership
  • 2006-10-02 — Paper received
  • 2006-10-02 — Sec 7 request filed
  • 2007-03-09 — Assigned to paralegal
  • 2007-03-14 — Post registration action mailed - sec. 7
  • 2007-07-17 — Paper received
  • 2007-07-17 — Response received to post reg. action
  • 2007-08-28 — Amendment under section 7 - processed
  • 2009-04-09 — Teas change of correspondence received
  • 2011-09-29 — Teas section 8 & 15 received
  • 2011-10-19 — Case assigned to post registration paralegal
  • 2011-10-20 — Registered - sec. 8 (6-yr) accepted & sec. 15 ack.
  • 2011-10-20 — Notice of acceptance of sec. 8 & 15 - e-mailed
  • 2013-11-22 — Teas change of correspondence received
  • 2013-11-22 — Teas revoke/app/change addr of atty/dom rep received
  • 2013-11-22 — Attorney/dom.rep.revoked and/or appointed
  • 2015-04-18 — Courtesy reminder - sec. 8 (10-yr)/sec. 9 e-mailed
  • 2015-11-05 — Teas revoke/app/change addr of atty/dom rep received
  • 2015-11-05 — Attorney/dom.rep.revoked and/or appointed
  • 2016-11-25 — Cancelled sec. 8 (10-yr)/expired section 9
  • 2016-11-25 — Final status recorded

Owner Information

IGT
RENO , NV
WAGERWORKS, INC.
SAN FRANCISCO , CA
WAGERWORKS, INC.
SAN FRANCISCO , CA
WAGERWORKS, INC.
LAS VEGAS , NV

Correspondent

Denise Taliaferro IGT
9295 Prototype Drive
Trademark Department
Reno, NV 89521

Filing Details

Filing Date:
2000-08-11
Status Date:
2016-11-25
Filing Year:
2000

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