Tesla has encountered legal headwinds in its push to trademark the terms “Robotaxi” and “Cybercab”, dealing a blow to the company’s highly anticipated autonomous ride-hailing plans ahead of a planned June 2025 launch.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) this week issued a “nonfinal office action” denying Tesla’s attempt to trademark “Robotaxi” for its electric vehicles, stating the term is “merely descriptive” and too generic to qualify for exclusive use.
The decision means that Tesla now has three months to provide evidence or argumentation to convince the USPTO of the term’s distinctiveness. If it fails to respond, the trademark application will be abandoned.
Tesla filed multiple trademark applications for “Robotaxi,” “Cybercab,” and “Robobus” in October 2024, coinciding with the public reveal of the Cybercab — a purpose-built electric vehicle intended for use in Tesla’s upcoming autonomous ride-hailing service. While the “Robobus” applications remain under review, both the “Robotaxi” and “Cybercab” marks have encountered early resistance.
The USPTO examiner handling the “Robotaxi” case noted that while no conflicting trademarks currently exist, the word is commonly used in the industry to describe self-driving taxi services, making it generic in context.
“Such wording appears to be generic in the context of applicant’s goods and/or services,” the USPTO wrote, adding that similar terms such as “ROBO,” “ROBOT,” or “ROBOTIC” are already being used by competitors in reference to comparable offerings.
Tesla has been asked to provide evidence including fact sheets, marketing materials, website screenshots, and other supporting documentation to demonstrate that the public associates the term specifically with Tesla and its products.
The company’s separate trademark application for “Robotaxi” — focused on ride-hailing services such as vehicle rentals, travel coordination, and car-sharing — is also under examination but has yet to receive a formal ruling.
Tesla’s attempt to trademark “Cybercab” has also stalled, this time due to conflicts with other “Cyber”-based trademark applications, including one related to aftermarket accessories for the Cybertruck.
The clash highlights a broader issue in Tesla’s naming strategy, which frequently leans on futuristic-sounding, tech-driven branding but can collide with generic or widely used industry terms.
Trademark attorney Mark Caddle, of Withers & Rogers, said Tesla’s misstep illustrates a key principle in trademark law: don’t file a trademark that merely describes the product.
“Tesla has fallen foul of an important rule that applies when attempting to register a trademark — that it shouldn’t simply describe the new product or service, as this could be considered generic,” he said.
Caddle warned that brands can also face “genericide”, where widespread use of a term leads it to lose distinctiveness. Historical examples include aspirin, escalator, and trampoline, all once trademarked but now generic.
“If the mark becomes widely used and the brand owner loses control of its exclusivity, it could be subject to genericide,” he added.
Tesla is widely expected to formally unveil its Robotaxi fleet and Cybercab service in June, making the timing of the USPTO refusal particularly problematic.
“With plans in place to launch a new ride-hailing business this summer, Tesla may have left its attempt to register ‘Robotaxi’ until a bit late in the day,” Caddle said. “This refusal by the USPTO is a setback that could impact its business plan.”
While Tesla can still use the term “Robotaxi” in marketing, lacking trademark protection leaves it vulnerable to imitation and weakens its intellectual property strategy, especially as rivals in the autonomous vehicle and ride-hailing sectors ramp up their offerings.
As Tesla races to finalise branding, launch strategy, and regulatory approvals, its ability to secure distinctive legal protections for its core product names will be critical — not just for marketing clarity, but for defending market share in a fiercely competitive field.