Status report
Get it in writing
The official USPTO status record for ONEPLUS, serial 97706219, as a dated PDF. One price, one document, delivered in about a minute.
INSTANT DELIVERY
Trademark Status Report
$7.99
The USPTO's own status record for this mark, on one dated page.
- Current status with a plain-English verdict
- Owner, classes, filing basis, and every key date
- The mark as it appears on the federal record
- Every prosecution event, filing to today
- Source-cited with the exact retrieval date
Built from the USPTO's TSDR record. Assignment chain of title and TTAB proceeding files sit in separate USPTO systems and are not included.
Preview
◆ TRADEMARKCHECKER.AITRADEMARK STATUS REPORT
ONEPLUSSerial 97706219 · Principal Register
Pending · Under Examination
Owner: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
Class 009 - Electrical & Scientific Apparatus
Class 035 - Advertising & Business
Class 041 - Education & Entertainment
Filed Dec 06, 2022
The record shows a live, pending application for the mark ONEPLUS owned by OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., filed on Dec 6 2022 and currently under examination on the Principal Register; the most recent meaningful event is the approval of a fourth extension of time to file a Statement of Use on Dec 11 2025. The application covers a broad set of virtual‑related offerings in classes 009, 035 and 041, including downloadable software and virtual goods such as TV, mobile phones, earphones, smart cameras, computers, tablets, smartwatches, batteries, backpacks, sports equipment and toys for use in online or virtual worlds, as well as online retail services for those items, virtual‑reality and augmented‑reality content, and entertainment services that provide non‑downloadable virtual games and experiences. Because the record is limited to those specific goods and services, a similar name used in unrelated fields would be farther from the scope shown here, but the record does not give the owner control over every possible use of the word “ONEPLUS.” The prosecution history shows no oppositions, cancellations or court actions, so the supplied history shows no enforcement signals. I'd treat this as a meaningful concern if you plan to use a comparable name in the same virtual‑goods or online‑entertainment space.
Full event history, owner details, and verdict inside.
The way I'd use it, honestly, is as the thing you attach when a bank, a marketplace, or a co-founder asks "are we clear on the name". It answers in one page.