Tesla Cybercab Trademark Faces Suspension After USPTO Review

On November 14, 2025, Tesla’s effort to secure the Tesla Cybercab trademark encountered a significant setback, highlighting ongoing challenges in the company’s autonomous vehicle branding strategy. Since the “We, Robot” event in October 2024, Tesla’s naming approach for its self-driving offerings has drawn scrutiny, and the Cybercab case now adds legal complexity to that debate.
The Tesla Cybercab trademark application has been formally suspended by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), following earlier resistance to Tesla’s attempt to register the term “Robotaxi” on the grounds of being too generic. Regulatory filings show that Cybercab is facing even greater obstacles, largely stemming from timing and priority issues related to trademark law.
Why the Tesla Cybercab trademark was suspended
According to the USPTO notice, the examining attorney identified two primary barriers preventing approval of the Tesla Cybercab trademark:

• Likelihood of confusion with an already registered mark, which remains a standing refusal.

• Priority conflict with a previously filed application, which carries an earlier filing date than Tesla’s submission.

The second issue is decisive. Trademark rules require the USPTO to give precedence to the earliest valid application, regardless of brand scale or market presence.
How timing worked against Tesla
The sequence of events explains why the situation escalated:

• October 10, 2024 – Tesla publicly introduced the Cybercab name during its autonomous vehicle event.

• October 28, 2024 – Another company filed a trademark application for Cybercab in the vehicle category.

• November 2024 – Tesla submitted its own trademark application.

Because Tesla revealed the name before filing, another applicant was able to secure priority, leaving Tesla legally disadvantaged despite being the originator of the concept.
The role of a potential trademark squatter
The blocking application belongs to Unibev, a company primarily associated with beverages rather than vehicles. Such cases often resemble trademark squatting, where a party files quickly after a public announcement to gain leverage. The USPTO has clarified that Tesla’s application will remain suspended until the earlier filing is either approved or withdrawn.
Unibev is not unfamiliar with disputes involving Tesla branding. The company holds trademarks for “TESLAQUILA,” a name Tesla previously attempted to use for a branded tequila product, suggesting prior tension between the parties.
What options remain for Tesla
Tesla has already contested the refusals, but the USPTO has indicated that these arguments were not persuasive. Practically, Tesla has limited paths forward:

• Reaching a settlement for the earlier applicant to abandon the claim.

• Pursuing legal action to demonstrate lack of genuine intent to use the mark in the automotive sector.

Without one of these outcomes, Tesla may be unable to claim ownership of the Cybercab name, potentially forcing a rethink of its autonomous vehicle branding plans. Industry sources indicate discussions are ongoing, though no resolution has been finalized.