Tesla, a electric car company famous for its bold ideas, is falling into a paradoxical situation related to the "Cybercab" brand, the name used for the self-driving electric taxi model that the company plans to launch on the market.
Instead of attracting attention with technology, Tesla attracted attention because of a procedural error that could cost the company a heavy price.
According to documents from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Tesla's "Cybercab" trademark registration has now been suspended.
The reason is not technical, but comes from Tesla announcing the product name before completing the necessary legal procedures.
During that delay, another company quickly registered and acquired legal ownership of this name.
Specifically, on October 10, 2024, Tesla organized a global launch event for the self-driving taxi model named Cybercab. However, it was not until October 17 that the company filed a trademark registration at USPTO.
This "follow-up" quickly revealed risks. Tesla's initial registration was delayed due to the possibility of confusion with a brand related to Pirelli.
That legal gap created an opportunity for UniBev (a French beverage company) to register and win the right to use the name Cybercab.
As of December 12, 2025, UniBev officially owns the Cybercab brand in the US and many international markets.
Tesla's records show that USPTO issued a notice of suspension on November 14, 2025, meaning that the review process could not continue until the dispute was resolved. This put Tesla in a passive position, even though it was the one who publicly announced the Cybercab name first.
Observers believe that the whole matter can be completely avoided if Tesla adheres to the correct order in its brand strategy of registering the brand first and announcing later.
This incident is likened to a basic lesson about work order, which is usually taught to elementary school students but is ignored by a corporation that owns a team of world-leading engineers.
Currently, Tesla has almost only two options. The first option is to negotiate and spend money to buy back the Cybercab brand from UniBev.
This is considered the most feasible scenario, because renaming a product that has been widely promoted will be costly and affect marketing strategy.
The second option is to completely rename the self-driving taxi model, accepting to start over in terms of brand.
Regardless of the direction chosen, the Cybercab case also shows that in the fierce technology race, seemingly small legal details can still create major consequences.
For Tesla, this is not just a story about a name, but also a reminder that technological innovation always needs to go hand in hand with caution in legality and brand strategy.
