The launch of Tesla’s dedicated robotaxi, the Cybercab, was meant to be a triumphant leap into the future of autonomous transport. However, as of January 2026, the vehicle’s trademark has hit a significant legal speed bump, LOL. Tesla now finds itself in a high-stakes trademark battle that could force a costly settlement or a total rebranding of one of its flagship products. Here is an analysis of the “Cybercab” trademark dispute and why it has become a textbook example of corporate branding risk.
1. The Timeline of the “Cybercab” Conflict: The primary issue stems from a surprising gap between Tesla’s public marketing and its legal filings.
- April 29, 2024: A French beverage company named UniBev files for the “Cybercab” trademark in France. Because of international priority rules, this date acts as their “placeholder” globally.
- October 10, 2024: Elon Musk officially unveils the “Cybercab” at the “We, Robot” event at Warner Bros. Studios.
- October 28, 2024: Eighteen days after the reveal, UniBev files a U.S. trademark application for “Cybercab,” claiming priority based on their April filing in France.
- November 2024: Tesla finally files its own U.S. trademark application for the name.
- November 14, 2025: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) officially suspends Tesla’s application, citing UniBev’s earlier filing.
2. The Primary Legal Obstacles: The USPTO has identified two main reasons why Tesla does not currently own the rights to the name:
Priority of Filing and Use
In trademark law, the principle of “first to file” (or “first to claim priority”) often determines who holds superior rights to a trademark. In many countries, including France and the United States, the party that files first—like UniBev, who submitted their application months before Tesla and prior to the public reveal—generally secures the stronger legal position. However, some countries follow a “first to use” system, where actual commercial use of the mark in commerce grants priority, regardless of filing date. In the case of “Cybercab,” since UniBev filed before Tesla and before any public use by Tesla, they maintained the upper hand in both “first to file” countries and, potentially, in “first to use” jurisdictions if they can demonstrate genuine use. Tesla’s delay in filing until after the global announcement allowed UniBev’s early “placeholder” application to become a significant
and possibly permanent barrier, especially in “first to file” countries, while the outcome in “first to use” countries would depend on evidence of real-world use by either party.
Likelihood of Confusion
The USPTO cited a “likelihood of confusion” with existing marks. Interestingly, UniBev didn’t just file for beverages; they filed in the broad Vehicle and Transport classes. Furthermore, companies like Pirelli already hold trademarks for the “Cyber” prefix in tire-related categories, further crowding the trademark space.
3. The “Teslaquila” Connection: This isn’t the first time Tesla and UniBev have crossed paths. UniBev is the same company that successfully blocked Tesla from using the name “Teslaquila” for its branded liquor (forcing a rebrand to “Tesla Tequila”).
Some critics and industry analysts have labeled UniBev’s strategy as “trademark squatting,” where a company monitors potential brand names to secure them before the intended user can. However, because UniBev filed its initial French application before Musk’s October reveal, they may argue they had independent intent to use the name.
4. Tesla’s Shrinking Options: With the U.S. “Cybercab” trademark application suspended, Tesla is left with three difficult paths:
- Negotiate a Payout: Tesla can pay UniBev to buy the rights to the name. Given the “Teslaquila” history, UniBev likely knows the high value Tesla places on the “Cyber” branding and may demand a massive settlement.
- Rebrand the Vehicle: Tesla could abandon the name. However, having already spent millions on marketing, launch events, and “Cybercab” merchandise, a rebrand (perhaps to “Cybertaxi”) would be a significant marketing setback.
- Legal Litigation: Tesla could attempt to prove that UniBev has no “bona fide intent” to use the trademark for actual vehicles, which is a requirement in the U.S. This would be a lengthy and expensive court battle.
The “Robotaxi” Problem: Adding to the frustration, Tesla’s backup name, “Robotaxi,” was also rejected by the USPTO in 2025. The office ruled that the term is “merely descriptive” – meaning it is a generic name for the service itself (like “Yellow Cab”) and cannot be owned exclusively by one company.
Key Takeaway: Even for a trillion-dollar company, the “Order of Operations” matters. Publicly announcing a brand before securing the legal paperwork can turn a marketing win into a multi-million dollar liability.