Tesla’s “Robotaxi” and “Cybercab” Trademarks Rejected by USPTO

Tesla’s ambitious plans to unveil its robotaxi fleet this summer may be hitting some unexpected red lights at the trademark office. According to a couple of Office Actions issued recently by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Tesla’s applications to register the marks “ROBOTAXI” and “CYBERCAB” have both been refused. The Office cited two common trademark hurdles: mere descriptiveness and likelihood of confusion.

These refusals offer a timely reminder that even the most well-funded companies can stumble at the USPTO. For small businesses, it’s a cautionary tale about the importance of choosing a strong, distinctive trademark—and clearing it properly before investing in branding.

“Robotaxi” Deemed Too Descriptive

The USPTO refused “ROBOTAXI” under Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, finding it to be merely descriptive of self-driving taxi services. The examiner explained that consumers would view the term as describing a feature of the service—namely, that it’s an autonomous taxi—not as a source identifier.

This type of refusal is common for businesses that opt for “on-the-nose” branding. While descriptive names may seem intuitive, they’re difficult (or impossible) to protect. A term that simply tells customers what you offer (without any element of distinctiveness) won’t pass muster at the USPTO unless it acquires secondary meaning through extensive use.

For a deeper breakdown of what makes a mark strong versus weak, see our guide on choosing a strong trademark.

“Cybercab” Creates a Conflict with Prior Registration

The second refusal—this time for “CYBERCAB”—was based on Section 2(d), citing a likelihood of confusion with an existing registration for “CYBERCARS.” Because both marks cover similar transportation services and share a key prefix (“Cyber”), the USPTO concluded that consumers might mistakenly believe the services come from the same source.

This is a classic example of how overlapping terms in related industries can cause legal problems, even when the overall branding feels unique. Trademark clearance isn’t just about avoiding identical names—it’s about assessing the real risk of marketplace confusion.

Lessons for Small Businesses

So what can entrepreneurs learn from Tesla’s troubles?

• Don’t rely on descriptive terms. Words like “robotaxi” may describe your business well, but they’re not protectable. Instead, look for names that are suggestive, arbitrary, or coined, as these are far more likely to survive USPTO scrutiny.
• Conduct a full trademark clearance search. Even a creative name like “Cybercab” can run into conflict with earlier filings. A proper search identifies not only exact matches but also similar marks with related goods or services.
• Trademark protection is strategic, not reactive. Tesla may be able to respond or rebrand, but most small businesses don’t have the time or money to make sweeping changes after a public launch.

Don’t Let Trademark Issues Derail Your Launch

Tesla’s refusals are still pending, and the company may respond or amend the applications. But these setbacks—just weeks before a scheduled product debut—highlight why small businesses need to lock down their trademarks early. Strong trademarks are easier to register, easier to defend, and far more valuable over time.

Need help protecting your brand from day one? Contact Harrigan IP to schedule a consultation with an experienced trademark attorney who understands how to guide small businesses through the trademark process—from name selection to registration and enforcement.