Status report
Get it in writing
The official USPTO status record for MAISON DE LA ROSE, serial 86550236, 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
MAISON DE LA ROSESerial 86550236 · Principal Register
Dead · Refused
Owner: MAISON DE LA ROSE INC.
Class 016 - Paper Goods & Printed Matter
Class 021 -
Class 035 - Advertising & Business
Class 042 - Scientific & Technology Services
Class 044 - Medical & Beauty Services
Filed Mar 02, 2015
The record shows that “MAISON DE LA ROSE” is an abandoned application, filed by MAISON DE LA ROSE INC. (a Florida corporation) on March 2 2015, and the USPTO issued an abandonment notice on May 2 2016 because no Statement of Use or extension was filed after the Notice of Allowance. The application covered paper goods and printed matter (gift boxes) in class 016, flower‑related items such as baskets, vases and bowls in class 021, a broad range of online and retail store services for fresh and dried flowers, gifts, gourmet foods, candles, plush toys and related décor in class 035, interior‑decorating and special‑event styling services in class 042, and floral‑design services in class 044. A similar name used for any of those goods or services would raise the closest record‑based concern, while uses outside those categories are farther from the scope shown. The record does not give the owner control over every possible use of the words “Maison de la Rose.” No supplemental‑register filing appears, and the latest meaningful event is the abandonment notice on May 2 2016; no enforcement actions are visible in the history. I'd treat this as a meaningful concern if you plan to market comparable flower‑related products or services under a similar name.
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.