The company’s announcement of the name before officially filing for the trademark has led to a suspension by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), mainly due to a filing by a French beverage company, Unibev, that has put Tesla’s claim in jeopardy.
Tesla’s troubles with naming its autonomous vehicles have become increasingly evident since the unveiling of the “Robotaxi” concept in October 2024. The USPTO previously rejected Tesla’s attempt to trademark “Robotaxi” because the term was deemed too generic. Now, with “Cybercab,” Tesla finds itself in a similar predicament. The USPTO has suspended the trademark application for “Cybercab,” citing two main reasons that prevent Tesla from securing the name.
Unibev’s Role in the Dispute
The first issue is a “Likelihood of Confusion” with an existing registration. According to the USPTO, report obtained by Electrek, Unibev’s application, filed just two weeks after Tesla’s October 10, 2024, announcement, takes priority over Tesla’s filing. Unibev’s application for “Cybercab” was filed on October 28, 2024, while Tesla didn’t file its own trademark application until November 2024. As a result, Unibev’s application was given precedence, blocking Tesla from taking ownership of the name.
Unibev, a French company that typically deals in beverages like hard seltzers, now stands in the way of Tesla’s plans for its autonomous vehicle. The timing of Unibev’s trademark application suggests that it may have been an act of trademark squatting, where companies rush to claim names of high-profile projects or products in order to block competitors. In this case, Unibev appears to have noticed Tesla’s announcement and filed for the trademark before Tesla could complete its application.
Tesla’s Failed Attempt to Fight the Refusals
Tesla has already tried to challenge the refusals, but the USPTO has remained unconvinced by its arguments. Despite Tesla’s efforts to argue for the name, the examining attorney, Meghan Reinhart, concluded that Tesla’s points were not persuasive enough to reverse the decision. The USPTO’s notice made it clear that action on Tesla’s application will remain suspended until the prior-filed application by Unibev either registers or is abandoned.
For Tesla, this suspension is a frustrating setback. The company is now faced with two options: it could attempt to negotiate with Unibev to have the company abandon its claim to the name, or it could engage in legal proceedings to argue that a beverage company has no legitimate claim over a name intended for an autonomous vehicle. A source familiar with the matter told Electrek that Tesla and Unibev are currently in negotiations, but as of now, no agreement has been reached.
The Risk of Rebranding
If Tesla cannot resolve the trademark dispute with Unibev, it could be forced to rebrand its autonomous vehicle. This would mark a significant shift from the “Cybercab” name that Tesla has already used in its public messaging and at the 2024 robotaxi event.
While some alternatives, like “Cyber-Taxi” or “Robo-Cab,” have been suggested, rebranding a high-profile project such as this is no simple task. The potential for confusion and the disruption to marketing strategies could create additional challenges for Tesla, which is already facing scrutiny over its autonomous vehicle efforts.
Tesla’s difficulty with trademarking “Cybercab” is indicative of a larger issue for the company: the rushed nature of its product announcements. As Tesla demonstrated with the “Robotaxi” trademark issue, unveiling major products without securing intellectual property protections first can lead to unforeseen complications. In this case, the “Cybercab” name was made public before Tesla filed for the trademark, opening the door for Unibev to step in and block the name.
The larger question now is whether Tesla will ultimately regain control of the “Cybercab” name or if it will be forced into a rebranding.
