Tesla has envisioned such a future for years, where self-driving vehicles and on-demand transportation become standard, and its branding has been forward-looking to match, withstrong, futuristic nomenclatures such as “Robotaxi” and “Cybercab.” They were meant to be attention-grabbers and symbols of innovation. But now that Tesla is nearing the launch of its autonomous ride-hailing operation, it’s encountering an unexpected roadblock—not from technical issues, but from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Last month, the USPTO sent a “nonfinal office action” rejecting Tesla’s bid to trademark the name “Robotaxi” for its electric cars. Why? The term is considered “merely descriptive” and too generic to be owned by any single company. In trademark law, that’s a big negative. In the USPTO examiner’s opinion, “Robotaxi” is already in common use throughout the industry to refer to self-driving taxi services, so it’s a generic name, not a distinctive brand name.
Tesla’s second attempt at a trademark, for “Cybercab,” has run into another kind of roadblock. Here, there isn’t a problem with descriptiveness but with competition. “Cyber” is already extremely common as a prefix among technology and automotive companies, particularly now with the influx of Tesla Cybertruck-related products and accessories. With a few other “Cyber”-themed trademark applications competing, the USPTO is keeping Tesla’s application on hold, pointing out how difficult it is to be held accountable for names that are sounding far-out but already red-hot. At the eye of the storm is one simple rule: trademarks must be distinctive.
Mark Caddle, a trademark attorney at Withers & Rogers, explains that businesses find themselves in trouble whenever they try to trademark words that only describe their products. If the term is already being used by other players in the same industry, the USPTO will reject it. In Tesla’s case, while the examiner was not able to find a direct trademark for “Robotaxi,” the widespread use of the name for similar services qualified as a basis to deny the application.
That being said, Tesla is not out of contention yet. The company has three months to react and attempt to plead its case. To proceed, it will need to establish that customers correlate the term “Robotaxi” exclusively with Tesla. That may include providing marketing materials, press, screenshots of websites, and other materials demonstrating the association of the term with the brand. The USPTO also seeks assurance that Tesla’s competitors have not used similar terms such as “ROBO,” “ROBOT,” or “ROBOTIC” in comparable scenarios.
Why is all of this important? Without trademark protection, Tesla can continue to use these names in its marketing—but so can anyone else. That creates an opening for competitors to employ the same or comparable branding, diluting Tesla’s hold on its message and possibly confusing consumers. There is also the danger of “genericide,” where a word becomes so widespread that it loses its designation as a trademark altogether. History does provide some important examples: aspirin, escalator, and trampoline alloriginated as trademarked brand names before taking on generic meanings.
Tesla’s case is representative of a larger dilemma for tech and innovation companies. Catchy, progressive names are bound to catch on in a hurry—but their popularity may exact a price in lost legal exclusivity. As Tesla wraps up itsnaming and looks ahead to its next giant leap with autonomous vehicles, establishing strong trademark protection will be paramount, not only for branding, but for keeping a competitive advantage in a rapidly fillingfield.
