Status report
Get it in writing
The official USPTO status record for VAROOM, serial 90673191, 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
VAROOMSerial 90673191 · Principal Register
Dead · Refused
Owner: 1263356BC Ltd
Class 009 - Electrical & Scientific Apparatus
Class 036 - Insurance & Financial
Class 038 - Communication Services
Class 039 -
Class 041 - Education & Entertainment
Class 042 - Scientific & Technology Services
Filed Apr 27, 2021
The record shows that VAROOM is an abandoned application – the USPTO marked it “dead” after the applicant failed to respond to a final Office action, with the abandonment notice dated January 10 2026, and no later maintenance events are listed. The owner listed is 1263356BC Ltd, a Canadian corporation, and the filing was made on April 27 2021 under an intent‑to‑use basis. The application covered a wide range of tech‑focused services: class 009 software that gathers sensor data and enables access to buildings and vehicles; class 036 credit‑card payment processing for travel reservations; class 038 electronic transmission and streaming of data; class 039 travel‑agency booking services for accommodations, flights, cruises and tours; class 041 ticket‑reservation services for entertainment and sporting events; and class 042 CRM and customer‑support software for travel providers. Because the filing never resulted in a registration, the record does not give the owner control over the word “VAROOM” in any other context, but it does signal a meaningful concern if you plan to use a similar name for software, travel‑booking, payment‑processing or related digital services. The supplied history shows no oppositions, cancellations or court actions, so no enforcement activity is visible. I'd treat this as a notable red flag for comparable tech‑travel offerings, though it does not block all uses of the term.
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.