The panel publishes 2 amounts, led by Organic Pure Trans-Resveratrol (4:1) (from Polygonum cuspidatum (root) Extract) 1.25 g.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 22, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
Specific fact confirmed
USPTO lists Minerva Partners, Inc. (['CORPORATION', 'CORPORATION']) in ['CALIFORNIA, USA', 'CALIFORNIA, USA'] for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itse…
Specific fact confirmed
UPCitemdb resolves 820103275880 to "Purity Labs Organic Trans Resveratrol Supplement for Skin Hair & Heart Health " (Purity Labs) — consistent with this listing.
The listing-image panel publishes an amount for each of its 2 declared rows. That supports ingredient-by-ingredient review; it does not verify the contents.
| Panel row | Amount | %DV | What to notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organic Pure Trans-Resveratrol (4:1) (from Polygonum cuspidatum (root) Extract) | 1,250 mg | — | |
| Organic Quercetin (as Quercetin DiHydrate) | 75 mg | — |
FDA rules (21 CFR 101.36) require the amount of each dietary ingredient per serving unless hidden in a declared “proprietary blend” (legal, but a transparency yellow flag). A label stating no amount at all is non-compliant — a checkable red flag. This panel states amounts; the open question is whether those declared amounts are independently verified and how they compare with relevant research.
vision:google/gemini-flash-1.5 Amounts are shown as declared panel data, not independently lab-tested contents.
1826 Buttonshell Lane, Newport Beach, CALIFORNIA 92660, UNITED STATES
Filed address
1826 Buttonshell Lane, Newport Beach, CALIFORNIA 92660, UNITED STATES
This is the USPTO owner of the brand wordmark. It tells a shopper who is behind the brand, but does not by itself identify the manufacturer or prove where this product was made.
Can the testing claim be tied to a named laboratory and this product lot? Evidence that would settle it: lot-specific COA naming the laboratory and matching the product lot.
Confirmed evidence
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
UPCitemdb resolves 820103275880 to "Purity Labs Organic Trans Resveratrol Supplement for Skin Hair & Heart Health " (Purity Labs) — consistent with this listing.
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
USPTO lists Minerva Partners, Inc. (['CORPORATION', 'CORPORATION']) in ['CALIFORNIA, USA', 'CALIFORNIA, USA'] for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells this product.
Documented concerns
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
No contradictions or product-specific cautions were found at this check depth.
Unresolved public record
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
The retained listing evidence does not establish net weight, per-serving dose, servings per container, so the dose claim cannot yet be checked against serving arithmetic. This is a neutral evidence gap, not a pass or strike.
Marketplace rating not shown★ — rating count unavailable. No exact-listing count history was available, so no review-pattern claim is made.
The listing claims third-party testing without naming any lab or certifier, so the claim can't be verified as stated.
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
What to ask and check
Ask the brand or seller
Can you send the certificate of analysis (COA) for the lot number on my bottle?
A real COA names the testing laboratory, the test date, the lot it covers, and what was measured. “Third-party tested” with no document behind it is a marketing sentence.
Is this label filed with NIH’s Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD)?
Filing is voluntary, so absence proves nothing — but a filed label puts the full ingredient table on public record where anyone can read it.
Were the endorsing professionals compensated, and what exactly did they review?
An endorsement can be genuine and still not mean the product was tested. Ask whether they reviewed the formula, the manufacturing, or only the marketing.
Most brands and sellers publish a contact route. A clear answer adds evidence to the record; no answer leaves the question open.
Check for yourself — no one’s permission needed
Compare the panel on the bottle in your hand to the one shown in this record.
Ours was read from listing photos and can contain reading errors. The physical label is the source of truth — if they disagree, tell us and we’ll correct the record.
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 820103275880.
A mismatch between the barcode on the box and the one on the listing is worth pausing over — it can indicate a different variant, a repack, or a counterfeit.
Check the lot number and expiry on the bottle against any COA you’re given.
A certificate that doesn’t name your lot doesn’t describe what you’re holding.
These are the open questions on this specific record — not a warning about the product, and not a suggestion to buy or avoid it. Getting them answered is how you decide for yourself.
Record built July 22, 2026. Sources: source listing observed at check time · USPTO Trademark Search · Keepa exact-listing history · NIH / published research · certification and regulator records where available. LookCloser publishes evidence and gaps; it does not advise for or against any supplement. Evidence-based corrections welcome.