Toothbrush
Tapocik May 19, 1
U.S. patent number D289,826 [Application Number 06/719,731] was granted by the patent office on 1987-05-19 for toothbrush. Invention is credited to Claudette M. Tapocik.
| United States Patent | D289,826 |
| Tapocik | May 19, 1987 |
Toothbrush
Claims
The ornamental design for a toothbrush, substantially as shown and described.
| Inventors: | Tapocik; Claudette M. (Riverside, CA) |
|---|---|
| Appl. No.: | 06/719,731 |
| Filed: | March 28, 1985 |
| Current U.S. Class: | D4/105 |
| Field of Search: | ;D4/104-113 ;15/159R,159A,160,167R,167A,106,110 ;128/62A ;132/84 |
References Cited [Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
| D160919 | November 1950 | Brooks |
| D201867 | August 1965 | Newman |
| 890143 | June 1908 | Kuzzer |
| 2110315 | March 1938 | Wolfson |
| 2141969 | December 1938 | Benz |
| 3050072 | August 1962 | Diener |
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Crowe; John H.
Description
FIG. 1 is a rear elevational view of a toothbrush showing my new design.
FIG. 2 is a right elevational view of FIG. 1, the left side elevational view being a mirror image thereof.
FIG. 3 is a front elevational view thereof.
FIG. 4 is a top plan view of FIG. 1.
FIG. 5 is a bottom plan view of FIG. 1.
* * * * *
uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.
While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.
| 