Tesla’s naming strategy for its autonomous vehicles has been, frankly, a bit of a mess since the “We, Robot” event back in October 2024, but now it is running into another issue trying to secure the ‘Cybercab’ trademark.
We previously reported on the USPTO shutting down Tesla’s attempt to trademark “Robotaxi” because the term was deemed too generic. At the time, we noted that the application for “Cybercab” was also facing scrutiny.
Now, Electrek has obtained a new suspension notice from the USPTO that shows the “Cybercab” trademark is in even deeper trouble than we thought, and it’s largely due to a mistake Tesla made by announcing the name before filing the paperwork.
The Suspension
According to a USPTO suspension notice obtained by Electrek, Tesla’s application (Serial No. 98806788) to trademark “Cybercab” has been officially suspended as of November 14, 2025.
The examining attorney, Meghan Reinhart, cited two main hurdles blocking Tesla from owning the name:
- A “Likelihood of Confusion” with an existing registration: The office maintained a refusal based on Registration No. 5963829.
- A Pending Priority Application: This is the big one. The USPTO states that a prior-filed application (Serial No. 79412082) has an earlier filing date than Tesla’s.
The “Squatter”: Unibev
The document reveals that the blocking application belongs to a company called Unibev.
The timeline here is frustratingly avoidable for a company of Tesla’s size:
- October 10, 2024: Elon Musk unveils the “Cybercab” at the robotaxi event.
- October 28, 2024: Unibev files their application for “Cybercab” in the vehicle category.
- November 2024: Tesla finally gets around to filing their own application.
Because Unibev filed roughly two weeks after the event but before Tesla submitted its paperwork, the USPTO has to give priority to Unibev.
Unibev appears to be a French beverage company that typically deals in hard seltzers, not autonomous vehicles. This has all the hallmarks of a classic trademark “squatting” scenario, someone watched the event, saw Tesla hadn’t filed yet, and raced them to the patent office.
The USPTO notice is clear: “Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons”.
Unibev might have a gripe against Tesla based on its existing US trademarks. The company holds 3 trademarks for ‘TESLAQUILA’, which is a name that Tesla tried to used when it launched its branded tequilla.
Where does Tesla go from here?
Tesla has already tried to argue against the refusals, but the document notes that the examining attorney “carefully considered applicant’s arguments… but does not find them to be persuasive”.
Unless Tesla can pay off Unibev to abandon their claim, or successfully argue in court that a beverage company has no intent to build cars, they effectively cannot own the name “Cybercab.”
A source familiar with the matter told Electrek that Tesla and Unibev are in negotiations over the matter, but no agreement has been reached yet.
Electrek’s Take
I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here, but this is indicative of how unprepared and rushed Tesla has been when it comes to demonstrating and hyping its autonomous driving effort.
When we wrote about Tesla effectively having no clear name for these vehicles immediately after the event, this is exactly the type of things we thought could happen. You cannot announce a major product on a global stage without having the trademark application filed before the CEO walks on stage.
It’s amateur hour and shows that Tesla really wanted to unveil its “cybercab” and demo it on a close course to keep its self-driving hype going.
Now Tesla is in a position where “Robotaxi” is too generic to own, and “Cybercab” is being blocked by a French seltzer company.
Tesla will likely have to pay a sum to buy the rights from Unibev. It’s annoying because it rewards squatting, but it’s also entirely Tesla’s fault for leaving the door open.
The other option is another rebrand. “Cyber-Taxi”? “Robo-Cab”? Or maybe they finally drop the “Cyber” prefix altogether, which, considering the Cybertruck’s polarizing reception, might not be the worst idea.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
