Tesla offers a range of home energy products — from the widely used Wall Connector to the Powerwall and the innovative Solar Roof. Now, for the first time, a unique residential development in Houston, Texas, combines all of these technologies — and more — to move toward energy self-sufficiency.
Self-Sufficient
This community, located in Oaks of Shady Acres and built by Utopia Homes, consists of just 11 townhomes, each designed using Tesla technology to be self-sufficient. Utopia has equipped the homes with Solar Roofs, Powerwalls, and Wall Connectors to complete the entire ecosystem.
Tesla’s Solar Roof replaces traditional roofing materials while doubling as a clean energy source during daylight hours. The best part is that it mimics the look of conventional shingles while improving durability and longevity. Any excess energy generated is stored in the home’s Powerwall 3 units, providing power when the sun is down.
Tesla's Solar Roof
Not a Tesla App
Tesla’s Universal Wall Connector, which can charge any EV equipped with either a NACS or CCS port (through a J1772 adapter). If you added on a Cybertruck with Powershare (more vehicles will support Powershare in the future), you’d have a backup system that would last an extremely long time on batteries alone.
A Powerwall 3 stores about 13.5 kWh of energy, while a Cybertruck has a battery pack of 123 kWh, which is roughly equivalent to about nine Powerwalls. In addition, the Cybertruck could be used as a “mobile battery pack,” which can get additional energy from Superchargers and bring it back to the home if there’s an extended power outage.
Utopia markets these homes with “100% energy security,” - but they’re still grid-connected. However, they appear to have made quite a point with this - as many people in Texas, with its notoriously unstable electricity grid - were excited to get into these homes.
Sadly, these homes still include a gas range, so they’re not entirely green and disconnected. This likely comes down to the fact that powering an induction range alongside a heat pump in the winter could draw more energy than Powerwall 3 is capable of outputting instantaneously.
Attention Getters
These 11 homes attracted a lot of attention - according to a broker working on Utopia’s team, they had requests to see or buy these homes coming from across the country. Priced around $544,900, these homes are about $150,000 higher than Houston’s median list pricing for similarly sized townhomes, but the benefits are clear for many buyers who will recoup these additional costs over the home’s life.
Utopia has acknowledged the demand for Tesla-powered and future-proofed homes like these and is already planning to build more in the future. This is an excellent showcase of what an electric-powered future could look like, and we’re excited to see more of these types of homes and neighborhoods in the future.
Subscribe
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date on the latest Tesla news, upcoming features and software updates.
Tesla’s plan to brand its autonomous network of taxicabs has found an interesting little snag. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a “nonfinal office action” regarding Tesla’s application to trademark the term “Robotaxi” specifically in connection with autonomous electric vehicles.
This is an initial refusal by USPTO’s examining attorney and is very particular for autonomous electric automobiles. A separate trademark application by Tesla for the term “Robotaxi” as it relates to its upcoming autonomous ride-hailing service is still under examination and has not yet received a similar rebuttal.
Understanding the Refusal
A “nonfinal office action” means the USPTO has found potential issues with the trademark application, as stated, which prevents its immediate approval and subsequent granting to Tesla. Tesla now has a three-month period to file its counterarguments and address the USPTO's concerns.
If Tesla’s response satisfies the examiner, the trademark could be granted.
While the exact content of the office action isn’t detailed in the initial report, such refusals for terms like “Robotaxi” often occur if the USPTO considers the term “merely descriptive” or “generic” for the goods in question. In this particular context, “Robotaxi” could refer to any autonomous taxi vehicle.
Trademark law generally prevents the exclusive registration of terms that competitors would need to use to describe their own similar products. For a term to be trademarked, it typically needs to be distinctive and act as a brand identifier rather than just a descriptive name of the product’s class or type.
Separate Application for Ride-Hailing
Tesla still has a distinct, separate, and still pending application to register “Robotaxi” as a trademark for “transportation services, namely, autonomous ride-hailing services.” The criteria for trademarking a service can differ from those on trademarks for goods, and it’s possible Tesla may have more success securing the name for the service itself, which would allow them to brand the network as “Tesla Robotaxi.”
Why This Matters
Securing a trademark grants exclusive rights to use a brand name in conjunction with specific goods or services. This helps prevent customer confusion and to protect the brand identity.
If the refusal for the vehicle trademark becomes final, Tesla may be limited in its ability to exclusively name a good (specific vehicle) the “Tesla Robotaxi.” Other manufacturers could also potentially use “robotaxi” descriptively for their own autonomous taxi vehicles.
The ability to trademark “Robotaxi” for the ride-hailing service is arguably more critical for Tesla, as they’re working to establish a unique brand for their autonomous transportation network, which kicks off in Austin next month.
The USPTO’s office action won’t hinder Tesla’s ability to develop or deploy its own vehicles in June - instead, it’ll just impact how Tesla can brand the app and their vehicles, which could cause some last-minute delays if they have to rebrand.
Cybercab and Robovan/Robobus Trademarks
While Tesla is facing challenges with the broader Robotaxi term for vehicles, the company is also seeking to trademark “Cybercab,” “Robovan,” and “Robobus.” Securing a less descriptive name for the vehicle itself often has a higher chance of success with USPTO, as it is far more distinctive than a more general term like “robotaxi.”
Why Didn’t Tesla Do This Years Ago?
Tesla may have waited too long to file a trademark for the term “Robotaxi.” While the company has been discussing a self-driving fleet since 2016, the concept of autonomous taxis has gained a lot more traction in recent years — and competitors like Uber have also begun using the term.
We suspect there was some strategic timing behind these filings. Earlier versions of FSD — particularly those prior to V12 — may have lacked the progress needed to support Tesla’s robotaxi ambitions. Filing for a trademark that isn’t actively in use or about to be used can make it harder to defend or retain.
Moreover, while the idea of autonomous vehicles has been around for years, a clearer public understanding of Tesla’s specific plans has only emerged over the past 18 months. Filing too early can trigger speculation long before the company is ready to reveal details.
Ultimately, whether Tesla secures the rights to “Robotaxi” remains uncertain — but trademarks like “Cybercab” and “Robovan” seem much more likely to stick.
![Exclusive: A Look Inside the Tesla Diner [PHOTOS]](https://www.notateslaapp.com/img/containers/article_images/2025/diner-seats.jpg/b0b4cb51b80d1f29298c9ca6b9ad2ae8/diner-seats.jpg)
_300w.png)
