USPTO serial 77883334
PURE GOLD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WILKE, JOHN
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE SECTION
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 PURE GOLD?
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.
Carl J. Spagnuolo
CARL J. SPAGNUOLO MCHALE & SLAVIN, P.A.2855 PGA BLVDPALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410-2910UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Encoded magnetic cards; magnetically encoded cards for carrying identity data; magnetically encoded debit cards | ACTIVE | — |
| 036 | Providing for the trading services of others in which components and units of precious metal deposits serve as currency which may be traded, exchanged and transferred in return for the goods and services of others | 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.
- Other trademarks owned by Reddy, Walter
- Other trademarks owned by Reddy, Walter
- Other trademarks owned by Silver, Scott
- Other trademarks owned by Silver, Scott
- Other trademarks in Class 009
- Other trademarks in Class 036
- Similar marks named PURE GOLD
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2012 | 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. |
| Feb 27, 2012 | 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. |
| Jul 26, 2011 | NOAM | NOA E-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. |
| May 31, 2011 | NPUB | OFFICIAL GAZETTE PUBLICATION CONFIRMATION E-MAILED | — |
| May 31, 2011 | 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. |
| Apr 28, 2011 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Apr 25, 2011 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Apr 22, 2011 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Apr 22, 2011 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 8, 2011 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 7, 2011 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Apr 5, 2011 | ERTD | TEAS REQUEST TO DIVIDE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 6, 2010 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Oct 6, 2010 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-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. |
| Oct 6, 2010 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 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. |
| Sep 17, 2010 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 17, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 17, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 7, 2010 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 8, 2010 | 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. |
| Mar 8, 2010 | 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. |
| Mar 8, 2010 | 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. |
| Mar 4, 2010 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 7, 2009 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Dec 4, 2009 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |