USPTO serial 77466761
PURIO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CASE, LEIGH CAROLINE
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 105 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
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 PURIO?
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.
Gerald OS Oyen
GERALD OS OYEN OYEN WIGGS GREEN & MUTALA LLP601 WEST CORDOVA STREETSUITE 480-THE STATIONVANCOUVER BC, V6B1G1Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | water purification systems comprised of reverse osmosis units, ultraviolet purification units, ozonation units, cooling units and water holding tanks used, in series, to produce potable water for domestic and commercial use; water clarifying units, namely, water purification units for domestic and commercial use | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4, 2011 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Nov 4, 2011 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Apr 8, 2011 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 8, 2011 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 8, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 18, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 10, 2011 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Nov 12, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 10, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 10, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 10, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 10, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 10, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 10, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 10, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 10, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 25, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 25, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 25, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 25, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 25, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 4, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 4, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 26, 2009 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Feb 25, 2009 | 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. |
| Aug 25, 2008 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF 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. |
| Aug 25, 2008 | 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. |
| Aug 25, 2008 | 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. |
| Aug 21, 2008 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 9, 2008 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |