USPTO serial 76609001
L'ANGE BLEU
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WHITE, RICHARD F
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 109 - SLIE
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 L'ANGE BLEU?
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.
NORM D. ST. LANDAU
NORM D ST LANDAU DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP1500 K ST NWSTE 1100WASHINGTON, DC 20005-1209Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | RETAIL CLOTHING STORES FOR CHILDREN | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 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. |
| Dec 21, 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. |
| May 19, 2011 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 18, 2011 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| May 5, 2011 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Nov 5, 2010 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| May 4, 2010 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 3, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 13, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 13, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 9, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 13, 2009 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 12, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 9, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| May 18, 2009 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 9, 2009 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 7, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 7, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 5, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 29, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 28, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 28, 2008 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 27, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 27, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 27, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 25, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 1, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 29, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 29, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 29, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 6, 2006 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 11, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 11, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 21, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 2, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 2, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 15, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 14, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 5, 2006 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 22, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 21, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 16, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Sep 9, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 9, 2005 | 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. |
| Mar 29, 2005 | 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. |
| Mar 28, 2005 | 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 28, 2005 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 24, 2004 | AMPX | PRELIMINARY/VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT - ENTERED | — |
| Sep 24, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 8, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |