Status report
Get it in writing
The official USPTO status record for BHIM, serial 97372959, 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
BHIMSerial 97372959 · Principal Register
Live · Registered
Owner: BHIM,MICHAEL
Class 042 - Scientific & Technology Services
Filed Apr 20, 2022
Registered Jun 13, 2023
The record shows that the mark “BHIM” is live and registered on the Principal Register under serial 97372959, owned by Michael Bhim, a sole proprietorship organized in New York. The registration covers class 042 services, specifically IT consulting services such as consulting in the field of installation, maintenance and repair of computer software, with first use in commerce on March 14, 2012. A similar name used for services that fall within this same IT consulting or software maintenance sphere would raise the closest record‑based concern. The record does not give the owner control over every use of the word “BHIM” in all contexts. The prosecution history shows a straightforward path from filing on April 20, 2022 to publication for opposition on March 28, 2023 and final registration on June 13, 2023, with no opposition or cancellation events recorded. The latest status event is the registration confirmation on June 13, 2023. Because no enforcement actions appear in the supplied history, there is no visible signal of owner aggression. For someone considering a similar name, the risk is that using “BHIM” for IT consulting or related software services could be seen as infringing, while use in unrelated fields may be less problematic.
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.