USPTO serial 74133048
DURAPLAST
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- TUCCILLO, SUSANA M.
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with DURAPLAST?
If you own this trademark, we can monitor new filings and help with USPTO deadlines. If you do not, we can file a new U.S. application.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lawrence E. Abelman
LAWRENCE E ABELMAN ABELMAN FRAYNE & SCHWAB150 E 42ND STNEW YORK, NY 10017UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 002 | paints and coatings used to protect and decorate metal, glass, and ceramic which are exposed to high temperature and to protect against corrosion of fluid containers | ABANDONED | — |
Related trademarks
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 1997 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Sep 5, 1997 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| May 7, 1997 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| May 7, 1997 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Aug 8, 1996 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Jul 11, 1996 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| May 13, 1996 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Oct 18, 1995 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Sep 8, 1995 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 1995 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Feb 2, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 24, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 19, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 6, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 26, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 5, 1991 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |