USPTO serial 78922344
CETAPHIL DAILYADVANCE ULTRA HYDRATING LOTION
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WHITE, RICHARD F
- Law office
- DIVISIONAL UNIT
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 CETAPHIL DAILYADVANCE ULTRA HYDRATING LOTION?
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
CH - 1000 Lausanne 30, CH
CH - 1000 Lausanne 30, CH
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
G. Mathew Lombard
G. Mathew Lombard Lombard & Geliebter LLP1115 Broadway, 12th FloorNew York, NY 10010UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | Pharmaceutical preparations for use in the treatment of dermatosis and for use as skin and scalp emollients; dermatological pharmaceutical preparations for use in the manufacture of additional medicaments | ACTIVE | — |
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 23, 2010 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 19, 2010 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Jul 19, 2010 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Dec 28, 2009 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Dec 18, 2009 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Dec 18, 2009 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Jun 19, 2009 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 18, 2009 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Jun 18, 2009 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Mar 23, 2009 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Mar 18, 2009 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 18, 2009 | ERTD | TEAS REQUEST TO DIVIDE RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 16, 2009 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Mar 16, 2009 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Feb 4, 2009 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Feb 4, 2009 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Feb 4, 2009 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 21, 2009 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Jan 19, 2009 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Dec 18, 2008 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jun 27, 2008 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 20, 2008 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Jun 20, 2008 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jun 20, 2008 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 18, 2008 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Dec 18, 2007 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Sep 25, 2007 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| Sep 5, 2007 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Aug 23, 2007 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Aug 23, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jul 11, 2007 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jun 11, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jun 11, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 11, 2007 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Dec 12, 2006 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Dec 12, 2006 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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. |
| Dec 5, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 15, 2006 | ARAA | ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Nov 15, 2006 | REAP | TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 12, 2006 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK MAILED | — |
| Jul 11, 2006 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |