In a surprising turn of events, Tesla has demonstrated a rather frantic approach to securing trademarks, filing for two new ones almost instantly after CEO Elon Musk mentioned them during the company’s Q4 2025 earnings call. This reaction comes on the heels of previous difficulties Tesla faced in obtaining the trademark for "Cybercab," illustrating a pattern of last-minute filings that may raise eyebrows.
So, what exactly happened?
On January 28, 2026, Tesla submitted applications for the trademarks "Cybercar" and "Cybervehicle," just 37 seconds apart. According to records from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) accessed by Electrek, the timeline is as follows:
Trademark: CYBERCAR
Serial Number: 99620747
Filing Time (ET): 7:32:54 PMTrademark: CYBERVEHICLE
Serial Number: 99620749
Filing Time (ET): 7:33:31 PM
These filings occurred shortly after the earnings call concluded at 5:30 PM ET. During this call, Musk expressed some confusion regarding the term "Cybercab," which he described as a specialized two-seater autonomous taxi. He noted:
"This can be somewhat perplexing when we refer to it as a robo taxi or CyberCab. In certain regions, we are restricted from using the terms 'cab' or 'taxi,' which complicates matters even further. We might wind up calling it something like Cybervehicle or Cybercar. However, the CyberCab model we are developing will not feature a steering wheel or pedals."
It's evident that Tesla's legal team was closely monitoring the earnings call, and they acted swiftly to file for these new product names as soon as Musk introduced them.
This hasty filing strategy seems to be a direct response to Tesla's previous trademark woes with "Cybercab." To recap that situation:
- October 10, 2024: Musk first revealed the "Cybercab" at a Tesla event dubbed "We, Robot."
- October 28, 2024: A French beverage company, Unibev, jumped ahead and filed for the trademark.
- November 2024: Tesla finally submitted their application for "Cybercab."
- November 2025: The USPTO suspended Tesla's application in favor of Unibev.
Due to Tesla announcing the name publicly before securing the trademark, other entities were able to swoop in and claim priority over it. As a result, a hard seltzer company now holds rights to the name intended for Tesla’s flagship autonomous vehicle.
Tesla also encountered difficulties with the term "Robotaxi," which was deemed too generic by the USPTO to be trademarked exclusively by the company. Consequently, they now find themselves in a challenging situation: unable to secure "Robotaxi" due to its generic nature and blocked from using "Cybercab" because of a competing claim.
Last night’s rapid filings indicate that Tesla has somewhat adjusted its approach, albeit only slightly. Instead of proactively securing trademarks before any public announcements—something most corporations do as standard practice—they seem to have adopted a reactive stance, rushing their lawyers to file applications immediately after Musk speaks.
The pressing question remains: Will "Cybercar" and "Cybervehicle" face similar hurdles? Given that Tesla has already secured the trademark for "Cybertruck," there may be a more favorable path ahead for these latest applications, although the USPTO has previously scrutinized other applications using the "Cyber" prefix.
In my honest opinion, it’s astonishing to witness how a company valued at hundreds of billions of dollars manages its trademark strategy. The conventional process is straightforward: determine product names internally, file for trademarks, and then announce them publicly. This is a standard practice adhered to by major tech firms like Apple and virtually all significant automotive manufacturers.
However, Tesla appears to operate on a different wavelength. It looks as though Musk shares his spontaneous thoughts during public calls, while the legal team scrambles to file the necessary paperwork before anyone else can stake a claim. The fact that Tesla managed to file two trademarks within just 37 seconds at the end of the earnings call speaks volumes about their operational style, which lacks a cohesive product naming strategy. Instead, it feels more like an improvised performance where Musk leads, and everyone else reacts.
What do you think about Tesla's approach to securing trademarks? Is this level of spontaneity acceptable for a company of its size, or should they adopt a more methodical strategy? Let’s hear your thoughts!
