Status report
Get it in writing
The official USPTO status record for MAXUS BY CAMPBELL HAUSFELD, serial 76491309, 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
MAXUS BY CAMPBELL HAUSFELDSerial 76491309 · Principal Register
Dead · Refused
Owner: Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Company
Class 007 -
Class 009 - Electrical & Scientific Apparatus
Filed Feb 20, 2003
The record shows that the mark “MAXUS BY CAMPBELL HAUSFELD” is dead, having been abandoned because the owner, Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Company, failed to file a Statement of Use or an Extension Request after the Notice of Allowance was issued on November 2, 2004. The mark was on the Principal Register and covered a narrow set of goods: air compressors, hand‑held air power and pneumatic tools such as impact wrenches, nailers, drills, air chisels, hammers, grinders, staple guns, saws, ratchets, punches, polishers, caulking guns, spray guns, sand blasters and winches, electric welding machines, pressure washers, and electrical arc welding machines, as well as electrical welding apparatus and related components. Because the goods are specific to power tools and welding equipment, a similar name used in those same categories would raise the closest concern. The record does not give the owner control over every use of the wording, only over the listed goods. No enforcement actions, oppositions, or cancellations appear in the supplied history. The latest event is the abandonment notice on September 27, 2005. For someone considering a similar name in the same tool or welding market, this history suggests a meaningful risk of confusion with the abandoned mark.
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.