Tesla has found winds against legal in its impulse to mark the terms “Robotaxi” and “Cyberercab”, hitting the highly anticipated autonomous transport plans of the company before a planned launch of June 2025.
The US patent and brands office (USPTO) issued this week an “non -final office” that denies the attempted Tesla registered “Robotaxi” by its electric vehicles, indicating that the term is “merely descriptive” and too generic to qualify.
The decision means that Tesla now has three months to provide evidence or argument to convince the USPT of the badge of the term. If you do not respond, the registered trademark application will be abandoned.
Tesla submitted multiple registered brand applications for “Robotaxi”, “Cybercab” and “Robobus” in October 2024, coincide with the public revelation of the electric vehicle specially designed by Cybercab, aimed at use in the Tesla Travel Transportation Service. While “Robobus” applications remain under review, “Robotaxi” and “Cybercab” brands have found early resistance.
The USPTTO examiner who handles the “Robotaxi” case said that, although there are currently no conflicting trademarks, the word is commonly used in the industry to describe the driver’s taxi services, which makes it generic in context.
“This wing seems to be generic in the context of the applicant’s goods and/or services,” wrote the USPT, and added that similar terms as “robot” or “robotic” are already being used by competitors in reference offers.
Tesla has been asked to provide evidence that includes data sheets, marketing materials, website screenshots and other support documentation to demonstrate that the public associates the term specifically with Tesla and its products.
The request for a separate brand application of the company for “Robotaxi”, focused on travel transport services, such as vehicle rentals, travel coordination and sharing, is also under examination, but has not yet received a formal decision.
Tesla’s attempt by “Cybercab” of Tesla has also stagnated, this time due to conflicts with other “cybernetic” brand applications, including a relationship with accessories in the accessories market for Cyberruck.
The clash highlights a broader problem in the Tesla name strategy, which is often based on futuristic sound, the brand driven by technology, but colide with generic or widely used industry terms.
The registered trademarks Mark Caddle, or Withers & Rogers, said that Masstep of Tesla illustrates a key principle in the Law of Registered Trademarks: does not present a registered trademark that simply describes the product.
“Tesla has a lack of foul or an important rule that is applied when trying to register a registered trademark, which should not simply describe the new product or service, since this could be considered generic,” he said.
Caddle warned that brands can also face “genicide”, where the use of broad propagation or a term leads to losing distinction. Historical examples include aspirin, mechanical staircase and trampoline, all once marked but now generic.
“If the brand is widely used and the brand’s owner loses control of its exclusivity, it could be subject to genicide,” he added.
It is widely expected that Tesla formally present its Robotaxi fleet and the cyber service in June, which makes the moment of the refusal of the USPT partly problematic.
“With plans in place to launch a new transport business this summer, Tesla may have left its attempt to register ‘Robotaxi’ until a little late,” said Caddle. “This rejection of the USPT is a setback that could affect your business plan.”
While Tesla can still use the term “robotaxi” in marketing, the lack of protection of registered brands leaves it vulnerable to imitation and accumulates its intellectual property strategy, especially as the rivals in the autonomous vehicle and transport increase their offers.
As Tesla buys to finish the brand, the launch strategy and the regulatory approach, its ability to ensure distinctive legal protections for their central products names will be critical, not only for the clarity of marketing, but to defend the market share in a fiercely competitive field.
Paul Jones
Harvard Alumni and former New York Times journalist. Business Matters editor for about 15 years, the largest commercial magazine of the UKs. I am also head of the Automotive Capital Division Business Media who works for clients such as Red Bull Racing, Honda, Aston Martin and Infiniti.
