Tesla’s attempt to secure a trademark for the term “Cybercab” has hit a significant roadblock, as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has suspended the application. The suspension comes in response to a competing trademark application submitted by the French beverage company Unibev, which has claimed rights to the name “Cybercab” for its own product.
The term “Cybercab” is intended to represent a future Tesla vehicle designed for its self-driving taxi service, commonly referred to as “Robotaxi.” While Robotaxi has been identified as the name for Tesla’s ride-hailing app, Cybercab is expected to be a model without traditional driving controls, aimed at integrating into the company’s autonomous fleet. The distinction between these terms is noteworthy, yet it appears that even Elon Musk has used them interchangeably, suggesting some internal confusion regarding their specific applications.
According to reports from Electrek, Tesla announced the Cybercab name on October 10, 2024, and subsequently filed for the trademark in November. This timeline coincided with Unibev’s trademark application, which was submitted on October 28, 2024. The timing has raised concerns about potential trademark squatting, where a company registers a similar trademark to obstruct or profit from the original entity’s business plans.
The USPTO’s suspension letter highlighted that Tesla’s arguments against the rejection of its application were considered but ultimately unpersuasive. This decision aligns with challenges Tesla faced previously regarding the Robotaxi name, which the USPTO rejected due to its generic nature.
The situation has led to speculation regarding negotiations between Tesla and Unibev. An anonymous source suggested that the two companies are exploring a potential agreement, although it remains unclear whether Tesla will be able to secure the Cybercab trademark without making concessions to Unibev.
Should Tesla fail to reach an agreement, the implications could be significant for its plans to expand its autonomous vehicle offerings. The idea of a Cybercab tour through regions such as Bordeaux could remain just that—a concept without a brand.
As this trademark dispute unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in branding and trademark law, especially in a rapidly evolving industry like autonomous vehicles. Tesla’s endeavors to trademark key terms in its innovative projects reflect the competitive environment in the tech space, where timing, strategy, and legal considerations are crucial for success.
