USPTO serial 74149486
DUREX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 601
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HAMILTON, MICHAEL
- 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 DUREX?
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
Chingford, London E4 8QA, GB
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Edwin E. Greigg
EDWIN E GREIGGSTE 220727 - 23RD ST SARLINGTON, VA 22202Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | toilet, deodorant and skin soaps; dish and laundry detergents; bath, hair, shower, and tooth preparations; namely, tooth powders, pastes and gels, body and hand preparations; namely, body and hand skin cleansing and moisturizing lotions, shower and bath gels, skin cleansing preparations; shave preparations; topically applied personal deodorants and antiperspirants; all in the form of liquids, creams, faoms and/or solid formulations | ABANDONED | — |
| 005 | contraceptive foams; antibiotic and hydrocortisone creams; topical gels for medical and therapeutic use; all-purpose disinfectants; medical disinfectants; douches all for use in the area of the vagina, penis or anus | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 1994 | ABN1 | ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED | — |
| Nov 29, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 22, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 23, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 10, 1994 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 22, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 25, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 15, 1992 | 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. |
| Oct 7, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 31, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 23, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 20, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 29, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 18, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 24, 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. |
| Sep 3, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 17, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 10, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |