Tesla’nın ‘Robotaksi’ ve ‘SiberTaksi’ ticari markaları, Haziran’da sorunlarla karşılaştı.

and vehicles; electric vehicles, namely automobiles; automobiles; and structural parts therefor,” according to the original application.

While the USPTO examiner found there were no conflicting trademarks in existence, it refused the application because it was “merely descriptive.” The examiner wrote that the term “Robotaxi” is “used to describe similar goods and services by other companies.”

“[S]uch wording appears to be generic in the context of applicant’s goods and/or services,” the examiner wrote.

Tesla will be allowed to submit evidence and arguments to support its argument in favor of the trademark. If it does, the USPTO wants Tesla to provide “[f]act sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, advertisements and pertinent screenshots of applicant’s website as it relates to the goods and/or services in the application, including any materials using the terms in the applied-for mark.”

In other words, Tesla needs to give the agency specific plans for how and why it deserves the “Robotaxi” trademark.

The examiner also wrote that Tesla will need to tell the USPTO if “competitors” use the terms “ROBO, ROBOT, or ROBOTIC to advertise similar goods and/or services.”

Tesla’s other application for the “Robotaxi” trademark would cover the use of the word when offering transportation services, including “coordinating travel arrangements for individuals and for groups,” “arranging time-based ridesharing services,” and offering vehicle sharing or rentals. That application was also assigned to a USPTO examiner on April 14, but no decision has been filed.

This story has been updated to include information about the “Cybercab” trademark applications.