USPTO serial 73818128
PURE FLO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STINE, DAVID
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with PURE FLO?
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.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
VIRGIL H. MARSH
VIRGIL H MARSH FISHER, CHRISTEN & SABOLSTE 5902000 M ST N WWASHINGTON, DC 20036Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | WATER TREATMENT APPARATUS, NAMELY, FILTERS, FILTER HOUSINGS, CHEMICAL DECONTAMINATION UNITS AND REVERSE OSMOSIS UNITS | ABANDONED | Jul 1, 1989 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 1991 | ABN4 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER INTER PARTES DECISION | — |
| Nov 14, 1991 | OP.T | OPPOSITION TERMINATED NO. 999999 | — |
| Aug 20, 1991 | OP.S | OPPOSITION SUSTAINED NO. 999999 | — |
| Aug 8, 1991 | OP.T | OPPOSITION TERMINATED NO. 999999 | — |
| Jun 10, 1991 | OP.S | OPPOSITION SUSTAINED NO. 999999 | — |
| Mar 11, 1991 | OP.I | OPPOSITION INSTITUTED NO. 999999 | — |
| Jan 3, 1991 | OP.I | OPPOSITION INSTITUTED NO. 999999 | — |
| Oct 2, 1990 | 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 1, 1990 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Jul 31, 1990 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jul 5, 1990 | 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. |
| Jun 19, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 19, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 8, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 31, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 17, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 14, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 14, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 12, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 9, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 2, 1990 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 2, 1989 | 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 21, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 30, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |