Status report
Get it in writing
The official USPTO status record for VAROOM.COM, serial 75742854, as a dated PDF. One price, one document, delivered in about a minute.
INSTANT DELIVERY
Trademark Status Report
$7.99
The USPTO's own status record for this mark, on one dated page.
- Current status with a plain-English verdict
- Owner, classes, filing basis, and every key date
- The mark as it appears on the federal record
- Every prosecution event, filing to today
- Source-cited with the exact retrieval date
Built from the USPTO's TSDR record. Assignment chain of title and TTAB proceeding files sit in separate USPTO systems and are not included.
Preview
◆ TRADEMARKCHECKER.AITRADEMARK STATUS REPORT
VAROOM.COMSerial 75742854 · Principal Register
Dead · Refused
Owner: AutoConnect, L.L.C.
Class 035 - Advertising & Business
Class 036 - Insurance & Financial
Class 038 - Communication Services
Class 042 - Scientific & Technology Services
Filed Jun 25, 1999
The record shows that VAROOM.COM is an abandoned service‑mark application, filed by AutoConnect, L.L.C., a Delaware limited‑liability company, and it was abandoned on Oct 19 2000 because no Statement of Use or extension was filed after the Notice of Allowance. The application covered four classes: Class 035 (advertising and business services that provide automotive information on a global computer network about vehicles for sale, valuations, parts, dealers, manufacturers and industry news), Class 036 (financial services that provide automotive information on a global computer network relating to financing for parts, services and vehicles), Class 038 (electronic mail services for consumers and manufacturers in the automotive industry) and Class 042 (scientific and technology services that provide automotive information on a global computer network about automobile clubs, trivia and history, plus an online bulletin board for automotive‑related messages). A similar name used for any of those online automotive information or communication services would raise the closest record‑based concern, but the record does not give the owner control over every possible use of the word “VAROOM.” The prosecution history shows the application moved from approval for publication to a Notice of Allowance and then to abandonment when the required use statement was never filed; there is no indication of any opposition, cancellation or court action in the supplied history. I'd treat this as a meaningful concern if you plan to offer comparable automotive‑information or communication services under a similar name.
Full event history, owner details, and verdict inside.
The way I'd use it, honestly, is as the thing you attach when a bank, a marketplace, or a co-founder asks "are we clear on the name". It answers in one page.