By no means am I an authority on patent and trademark matters, however reading through the USPTO documents, it seems like Tesla has a fairly decent chance at overcoming this obstacle.
Electrek doesn't make clear that there are actually two companies at play here, Pirelli Tyre, who successfully registered a stylized "Cyber" mark in 2020, and UniBev, who filed for the mark "Cybercab" on 2024/10/28. Interestingly, they cite a Priority Date of 2024/04/29, much earlier than the Cybercab event. It's unclear to me whether this is a snipe/squatter situation as Electrek purports, or if having already started using the "Cybercab" mark, UniBev realized after the Tesla event that they needed to file immediately.
Either way, the USPTO essentially said that since there was a likelihood of confusion with Pirelli Tyre's mark, and the potential for a likelihood of a confusion with UniBev's mark ("potential" insomuch as UniBev's filing is still under review and not yet officially registered), that Tesla's application must be refused. It's a non-final action however, and the applicant (Tesla) could file additional evidence/arguments.
Tesla did so, and while the USPTO Examining Attorney who reviewed it believed Tesla's latest submission wasn't persuasive, they noted that there's no point in addressing the issues until UniBev's filing is either abandoned or completed. At that point the USPTO will issue their final refusal, and Tesla can start the appeal process.
Tesla's arguments are basically that there isn't really any likelihood that their mark will be confused with the other companies, that they have already registered "Cyber" marks back to 2019 and as such are much more recognized, and that the justifications put forth in original non-final action were not properly considered.
So if UniBev doesn't successfully register, then Tesla only has to deal with Pirelli Tyre's previous registration, which honestly seems like the easier one to overcome. If UniBev does register, then Tesla has to overcome both. I think an appeal will be won by Tesla eventually, but it's probably easier to just save time and pay off the other two companies.
According to a USPTO suspension notice dated November 14, 2025 and obtained by Electrek, Tesla’s application to trademark “Cybercab” cannot proceed due to two issues: a likelihood of confusion with an existing registration, and more importantly, a prior-filed application that takes legal priority.
That earlier filing belongs to Unibev, which submitted its own “Cybercab” application on October 28, 2024—roughly two weeks after Tesla publicly unveiled the name at its ‘We, Robot’ event, but before Tesla filed any paperwork in November.
Under U.S. trademark law, timing is everything. Because Unibev filed first, the USPTO is required to halt Tesla’s application until the earlier claim is resolved – either by the company following through and registering the name, or abandoning its claim. [...] Tesla has already attempted to argue against the Cybercab refusals, but Electrek notes the examining attorney said that those arguments were “carefully considered” but ultimately unpersuasive. With Tesla’s application for “Robotaxi” rejected because it was deemed too generic to own and “Cybercab” now blocked, Tesla is left with limited options. It can negotiate a settlement with Unibev, attempt a costly legal challenge, or abandon the name entirely in favor of another rebrand.
From what I can tell, Unibev is a tiny brewing company with almost no online presence. Searching for them on DDG mostly just turns up stories about this Cybercab trademark.
Were you thinking maybe this was a good faith trademark where they actually wanted to call a drink Cybercab? They aren’t. Their trademark says they intend for this to be an electric vehicle.
I’m not a lawyer, but my guess is Tesla opts to ignore the trademark issue and go ahead with selling the vehicle as the Cybercab. Unibev is then forced to either sue Tesla, which goes into discovery where, surprise, a beer company actually had no plans to bring any electric vehicles to market, Unibev loses their case, has to pay lawyers, and now Unibev gets counter sued for frivolous lawsuits and trademark squatting. Or Unibev silently lets Tesla use the name, which leads to Unibev losing it by default and Tesla gets to use it, I think?
There is the outside chance that Unibev is actually making an electric vehicle… it’s so improbable as to not entertain further.
Were you thinking maybe this was a good faith trademark where they actually wanted to call a drink Cybercab? They aren’t. Their trademark says they intend for this to be an electric vehicle.
Trademarks are domain-specific. It wouldn't be in enforceable if the trademark was for anything other than an electric vehicle, an autonomous vehicle, or something similar.
BREAKING: Tesla files trademark for "CYBRCAB"
Cyb3rcab
Note OP posted the futurism clickbait version everywhere else, just another bad actor here. https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/s/IFTwt9KRkj
By no means am I an authority on patent and trademark matters, however reading through the USPTO documents, it seems like Tesla has a fairly decent chance at overcoming this obstacle.
Electrek doesn't make clear that there are actually two companies at play here, Pirelli Tyre, who successfully registered a stylized "Cyber" mark in 2020, and UniBev, who filed for the mark "Cybercab" on 2024/10/28. Interestingly, they cite a Priority Date of 2024/04/29, much earlier than the Cybercab event. It's unclear to me whether this is a snipe/squatter situation as Electrek purports, or if having already started using the "Cybercab" mark, UniBev realized after the Tesla event that they needed to file immediately.
Either way, the USPTO essentially said that since there was a likelihood of confusion with Pirelli Tyre's mark, and the potential for a likelihood of a confusion with UniBev's mark ("potential" insomuch as UniBev's filing is still under review and not yet officially registered), that Tesla's application must be refused. It's a non-final action however, and the applicant (Tesla) could file additional evidence/arguments.
Tesla did so, and while the USPTO Examining Attorney who reviewed it believed Tesla's latest submission wasn't persuasive, they noted that there's no point in addressing the issues until UniBev's filing is either abandoned or completed. At that point the USPTO will issue their final refusal, and Tesla can start the appeal process.
Tesla's arguments are basically that there isn't really any likelihood that their mark will be confused with the other companies, that they have already registered "Cyber" marks back to 2019 and as such are much more recognized, and that the justifications put forth in original non-final action were not properly considered.
So if UniBev doesn't successfully register, then Tesla only has to deal with Pirelli Tyre's previous registration, which honestly seems like the easier one to overcome. If UniBev does register, then Tesla has to overcome both. I think an appeal will be won by Tesla eventually, but it's probably easier to just save time and pay off the other two companies.
Just use “Johnny Cab” and be done with it.
From what I can tell, Unibev is a tiny brewing company with almost no online presence. Searching for them on DDG mostly just turns up stories about this Cybercab trademark.
Were you thinking maybe this was a good faith trademark where they actually wanted to call a drink Cybercab? They aren’t. Their trademark says they intend for this to be an electric vehicle.
I’m not a lawyer, but my guess is Tesla opts to ignore the trademark issue and go ahead with selling the vehicle as the Cybercab. Unibev is then forced to either sue Tesla, which goes into discovery where, surprise, a beer company actually had no plans to bring any electric vehicles to market, Unibev loses their case, has to pay lawyers, and now Unibev gets counter sued for frivolous lawsuits and trademark squatting. Or Unibev silently lets Tesla use the name, which leads to Unibev losing it by default and Tesla gets to use it, I think?
There is the outside chance that Unibev is actually making an electric vehicle… it’s so improbable as to not entertain further.
Trademarks are domain-specific. It wouldn't be in enforceable if the trademark was for anything other than an electric vehicle, an autonomous vehicle, or something similar.
So why don’t you post the top comment from the trademark attorney on the other sub you posted the clickbait version on?
Cybercrab ?
F the Frenchy French.
Y'know, a serious business might have their trademarks sorted before they announce.
Yes!
They were too busy inovatin' on fsd
What impact other than zero does this have on investors?
F the french