USPTO serial 77194992
LE CONCIERGE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- HACK, ANDREA R
- 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 LE CONCIERGE?
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
Beverly Hills, CA
Beverly Hills, CA
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 045 | Personal concierge services for others comprising making requested personal arrangements and reservations, running errands and providing customer specific information to meet individual needs, all rendered in business establishments, office buildings, hotels, residential complexes and homes | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 20, 2009 | 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. |
| Jul 20, 2009 | 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. |
| Mar 27, 2009 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Mar 27, 2009 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Mar 5, 2009 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Mar 5, 2009 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Mar 5, 2009 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 21, 2009 | 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. |
| Jan 19, 2009 | 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. |
| Dec 17, 2008 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Jun 17, 2008 | NOAM | NOA 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. |
| Mar 25, 2008 | 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. |
| Mar 5, 2008 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Feb 19, 2008 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Feb 18, 2008 | ATRV | ATTORNEY REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Feb 16, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 16, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 16, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 16, 2008 | 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. |
| Dec 17, 2007 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Dec 14, 2007 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Dec 14, 2007 | GNEN | NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 14, 2007 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 14, 2007 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 10, 2007 | GPRN | NOTIFICATION OF PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Sep 10, 2007 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Sep 10, 2007 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Sep 10, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 7, 2007 | MDSC | NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE MAILED | — |
| Jun 6, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |