USPTO serial 76250184
SOLARSTAR
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KIM, YONG OH
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
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 SOLARSTAR?
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.
BERNHARD KRETEN
WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK SPROUL BERNHARD KRETEN & SCOTT HERVEY400 CAPITOL MALL, 11TH FLSACRAMENTO, CA 95814UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Apparatus for converting electron radiation to electric energy, namely, photovoltaic cells, photovoltaic modules, inverters, wiring, safety circuits, high energy dischargers, and mountings | ACTIVE | Feb 7, 2000 |
| 042 | Design and engineering of alternative energy systems for others | ACTIVE | Feb 7, 2000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2006 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Aug 30, 2006 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Aug 30, 2006 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Aug 1, 2006 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| May 15, 2006 | GECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| May 15, 2006 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Jan 31, 2006 | ATRQ | ATTORNEY REVIEW/DECISION ON AMENDMENT REQUIRED | — |
| Jan 26, 2006 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jan 26, 2006 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jan 26, 2006 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jan 25, 2006 | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2005 | GNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 25, 2005 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING A FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| May 11, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 18, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 18, 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. |
| Apr 18, 2005 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 18, 2004 | 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. |
| Oct 17, 2004 | 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. |
| May 27, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 27, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 27, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 23, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Feb 20, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 24, 2003 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Nov 20, 2003 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Sep 29, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 15, 2003 | 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. |
| Jan 28, 2003 | 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. |
| Sep 30, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 25, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jul 18, 2002 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 18, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 20, 2002 | 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. |
| Aug 20, 2001 | 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. |
| Jul 28, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |