Home ›
Trademark Categories ›
Science & Technology Services ›
2008 ›
VE ›
VERECHIP
Trademark search for:
VERECHIP
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.
Check latest trademark, domains & social handles
Live search · Most up-to-date results
USPTO Filing History
Key events recorded for this trademark application
2008-10-28 — Application filed
2008-10-31 — Application filed
2008-11-01 — Notice of pseudo mark mailed
2009-01-29 — Final disposition recorded
2009-01-29 — Final disposition recorded
2009-01-29 — Assigned to examiner
2009-01-29 — Final disposition recorded
2009-07-29 — Office action issued
2009-08-17 — Assigned to lie
2009-08-19 — Teas/email correspondence entered
2009-08-19 — Correspondence received in law office
2009-09-08 — Final disposition recorded
2009-09-08 — Final disposition recorded
2009-09-08 — Final disposition recorded
2010-03-07 — Office action issued
2010-03-09 — Teas/email correspondence entered
2010-03-09 — Correspondence received in law office
2010-03-30 — Suspension letter written
2010-03-30 — Letter of suspension e-mailed
2010-03-30 — Notification of letter of suspension e-mailed
2010-09-30 — Suspension letter written
2010-09-30 — Letter of suspension e-mailed
2010-09-30 — Notification of letter of suspension e-mailed
2010-09-30 — Suspension checked - to attorney for action
2011-03-30 — Suspension inquiry written
2011-03-30 — Inquiry to suspension e-mailed
2011-03-30 — Notification of inquiry as to suspension e-mailed
2011-09-27 — Teas response to suspension inquiry received
2011-09-27 — Teas/email correspondence entered
2011-09-27 — Correspondence received in law office
2011-10-19 — Final disposition recorded
2011-10-19 — Final disposition recorded
2011-10-19 — Final disposition recorded
2012-04-18 — Office action issued
2012-04-26 — Teas/email correspondence entered
2012-04-26 — Correspondence received in law office
2012-05-25 — Examiners amendment -written
2012-05-25 — Office action issued
2012-05-25 — Examiners amendment e-mailed
2012-05-25 — Notification of examiners amendment e-mailed
2012-05-25 — Office action issued
2012-05-25 — Office action issued
2012-05-25 — Examiner's amendment entered
2012-11-26 — Teas request for reconsideration received
2012-11-30 — Teas/email correspondence entered
2012-11-30 — Correspondence received in law office
2012-12-05 — Examiners amendment -written
2012-12-05 — Approved for pub - principal register
2012-12-05 — Examiners amendment e-mailed
2012-12-05 — Notification of examiners amendment e-mailed
2012-12-05 — Examiner's amendment entered
2012-12-11 — Law office publication review completed
2012-12-26 — Notification of notice of publication e-mailed
2013-01-15 — Published for opposition
2013-01-15 — Official gazette publication confirmation e-mailed
2013-03-12 — Noa e-mailed - sou required from applicant
2013-06-07 — Teas delete 1(b) basis received
2013-06-07 — Notice of allowance cancelled
2013-06-28 — Case assigned to intent to use paralegal
2013-07-03 — 1(b) basis deleted; proceed to registration
2013-08-13 — Registered-principal register
2018-08-13 — Courtesy reminder - sec. 8 (6-yr) e-mailed
2019-06-24 — Teas section 8 received
2019-07-02 — Case assigned to post registration paralegal
2019-07-02 — Registered - sec. 8 (6-yr) accepted
2019-07-02 — Notice of acceptance of sec. 8 - e-mailed
2022-08-13 — Courtesy reminder - sec. 8 (10-yr)/sec. 9 e-mailed
2024-02-23 — Cancelled sec. 8 (10-yr)/expired section 9
2024-02-23 — Final status recorded
Owner Information
Veredus Laboratories Pte Ltd
Singapore SG
Veredus Laboratories Pte Ltd
Singapore SG
Veredus Laboratories Pte Ltd
Singapore SG
Correspondent
Nicholas J. Gingo RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR LLP 1621 Euclid Ave. 19th Floor CLEVELAND, OH 44115-2193
Filing Details
Filing Date:
2008-10-28
Status Date:
2024-02-23
Disclaimer: This page is informational only and does not constitute legal advice.
Trademark availability depends on jurisdiction, usage, and legal interpretation.