USPTO serial 77163469
PV/T
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SINGLETON, RUDY
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 102 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
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 PV/T?
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.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Colleen F. Goss
Colleen F. Goss Fay Sharpe LLP1228 Euclid AvenueThe Halle Building, 5th FloorCleveland, OH 44115Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | solar collection systems for producing electricity and heating, air ventilating, and air humidification, comprising insulation, metalsiding, metal roof panels, glazing, integral air channels, air intakes, fans, ducts, burners, controllers, photovoltaic panels, dampers, and heat loss recovery components, namely, metalsiding and metal roofing acting as heat transfer surfaces, and controls for all of the foregoing | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 6, 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. |
| Jun 5, 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. |
| Oct 23, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 23, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 23, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 1, 2010 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 31, 2010 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 31, 2010 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 31, 2010 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 10, 2010 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 10, 2010 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 2010 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 11, 2009 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 11, 2009 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 11, 2009 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 4, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 3, 2009 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 2009 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 3, 2009 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 7, 2009 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 7, 2009 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 5, 2009 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 5, 2009 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 10, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 10, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 10, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 18, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 18, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jan 18, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 18, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 18, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Dec 26, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Dec 26, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 26, 2007 | 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. |
| Jun 23, 2007 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Jun 23, 2007 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Jun 23, 2007 | 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. |
| Jun 20, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 26, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |