Tesla files a challenge to oppose the squatting of the 'Cybercab' trademark

The French beverage company UniBev surprised Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) when last year it rushed to register the ‘CYBERCAB’ name as a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

UniBev registered the ‘CYBERCAB’ trademark soon after the Tesla Robotaxi unveiling event, ‘We, Robot’ at Warner Bros. Studios last year. The Tesla team wasn’t expecting this and later found out that the French company held the trademark.

UniBev’s owners are most probably trying to cash out on this trademark by getting a monetary offer from Tesla. However, the automaker chose a different route; it challenged UniBev’s squatting of the Cybercab nomenclature with the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

According to the opposition document (Opposition No. 91305433) published on the USPTO website, Tesla filed for the opposition of the Cybercab trademark on Wednesday, 18th February.

On Tuesday, 24th February, the USPTO sent the notice of Tesla’s challenge and trial date to UniBev. An answer is due from UniBev on Tesla’s opposition.

UniBev, as we previously discussed, is a beverage company. It has nothing to do with the automotive company and does not plan to ever launch a vehicle named Cybercab. Interestingly, it’s the same company that holds the Teslaquila, Cybertaxi, and the Cyberquad trademarks as well.

This French beverage company is literally stalking Tesla and squatting every possible vehicle name it can to bargain for a good deal with the automaker. UniBev does not realize that Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk, don’t give in to this sort of extortion. Thus, Tesla has challenged UniBev’s holding of the Cybercab trademark.

UniBev has 60 days to respond to USPTO’s notice of Tesla’s opposition to the Cybercab trademark. If the defendant fails to respond within the given time period, USPTO reserves the right to cancel and re-assign the trademark to Tesla, Inc. (TSLA). In this case, UniBev is the ‘Applicant,’ and Tesla is the ‘Defendant’.

The USPTO notice document states:

Applicant must file an answer within sixty (60) days from the date of this order. Failure to file a timely answer may result in the entry of default judgment and abandonment of the application.

Grounds for Opposition

In its 167-page opposition file (PDF here), Tesla presented the Cybertruck word and design marks as the basis for its opposition to UniBev’s registration of the Cybercab trademark in bad faith (trademark squatting).

Since Tesla is already using the word ‘Cyber’ for its vehicle lineup, UniBev acquired the trademark to extort the automaker. Tesla is already selling the Cybetruck name and wordmark with previously registered trademarks.

Tesla also presented the screenshots and proofs of the widespread coverage of the We, Robot event, where the automaker unveiled the Cybercab/Robotaxi vehicle.

Tesla wrote in its opposition filing to USPTO:

On information and belief, Applicant filed the above-listed trademark applications solely on a speculative, bad faith basis. There is no evidence indicating that Applicant has ever had a good faith intent to market, promote, offer for sale, or sell any products or services under
any of these alleged marks in the United States or anywhere else in the world.

===

Featured image: Courtesy of Tesla, Inc. / enhanced by Grok / X.

Note: This article was published earlier on Tesla Oracle. Author: Iqtidar Ali.