Lucid Motors is stuck in a fight over the name of its Gravity SUV

[lambo]

From TechCrunch

Lucid Motors is at risk of losing the trademark for the name of its Gravity SUV, just months before the company is supposed to start production.

Google Ventures-backed EV charging company Gravity Inc. filed a “petition for cancellation” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in December asking for Lucid’s Gravity trademark to be revoked. The startup claims in the petition that Lucid’s use of the Gravity name could confuse consumers, since Gravity Inc. uses it for EV charging and has used it in the past to operate a fleet of EV taxis.

Lucid Motors is stuck in a fight over the name of its Gravity SUV | TechCrunch

An EV charging company has held a "Gravity" trademark since 2017, and filed a petition to revoke Lucid's use of the name.

techcrunch.com

 

[scal_air]

Just read this too.
Good grief, what next?

 

[PhotoEye]

Just read this too.
Good grief, what next?

Just pay them.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

As a lawyer that does some TM, this suit was the first thing I antiicipated when I saw the new Gravity charging station in NYC.

 

[northernstar]

Press Room

Hear about the latest Gravity news and what we are doing to build a green, sustainable EV fleet and expand EV infrastructure in NYC.

gravitymobility.com

Judging by the website, it looks like they've started the venture - possibly registered the name trademark as early as 2021.

"Ocean" is taken by Fisker... (btw, why "Pear"???)
Kia uses "Wind" for their trim tier....

Perhaps Lucid might have to get a bit creative with their model names and trademark them in advance...

 

[Neurio]

"Ocean" is taken by Fisker... (btw, why "Pear"???)

Personal Electric Automotive Revolution

 

[northernstar]

Personal Electric Automotive Revolution

Mouthful! lol.
Lucid better be consistent with their vehicle naming nomenclature...

 

[scal_air]

As a lawyer that does some TM, this suit was the first thing I antiicipated when I saw the new Gravity charging station in NYC.

What do you think of the merits of Gravity Inc's case? Were they trademarked in sufficiently different businesses to allow Lucid to keep the name for their SUV?

 

[Andretex]

I think Lucid will win. Gravity is a common name and has been used before for other purposes. Lucid Gravity is a car model. Lucid does not advertise as Gravity. It is Lucid Gravity. Gravity EV charging is different. Gravity is used as a search engine, as forms, a racing game, etc. google’s gravity ev service is called Gravity Mobility. Logos are different. I think this is different enough. When you use a common word as a brand it is common for this issue to happen.

 

[PhotoEye]

What do you think of the merits of Gravity Inc's case? Were they trademarked in sufficiently different businesses to allow Lucid to keep the name for their SUV?

Not worth the cost of fighting (legal and PR) since "Inc." is already out there in a highly related class. Will look amateurish for not having protected the name at the outset -- think how legacy auro makers and pharma companies manage their nameplate portfolios years in advance of use.

Make the "non-confusion" argument and counter claim long enough to develop and protect future trim names, then start promoting them skillfully before first production release.

This is a case where Lucid's low name recognition (even lower for 'Gravity") can be an asset. Just my perspective, having experienced both sides of infringement cases. We don't need any extended public-facing litigation about the SUV rollout.

 

[scal_air]

As I understand it, Lucid was granted the trademark Gravity for its SUV. The lawsuit seeks to revoke that based on the similarily between the EV and the now seemingly defunct EV transportation service from Gravity Inc. I think you are right that it is a money issue but Lucid did secure the name.

 

[no gas]

Is there an argument that anything reflecting negatively on Lucid Gravity may reflect badly on Gravity inc and that’s why they are wanting a name change? Nike has the AIr, and so does Lucid. How would this be different. Could Nike sue as well?

 

[xponents]

Is there an argument that anything reflecting negatively on Lucid Gravity may reflect badly on Gravity inc and that’s why they are wanting a name change? Nike has the AIr, and so does Lucid. How would this be different. Could Nike sue as well?

That’s a different case since Nike is not even remotely in the same sector as Lucid (unlike this case, where both are loosely related in that they are both about evs).

 

[Green G]

Not worth the cost of fighting (legal and PR) since "Inc." is already out there in a highly related class. Will look amateurish for not having protected the name at the outset -- think how legacy auro makers and pharma companies manage their nameplate portfolios years in advance of use.

Make the "non-confusion" argument and counter claim long enough to develop and protect future trim names, then start promoting them skillfully before first production release.

This is a case where Lucid's low name recognition (even lower for 'Gravity") can be an asset. Just my perspective, having experienced both sides of infringement cases. We don't need any extended public-facing litigation about the SUV rollout.

I am not in the legal profession so please take my question as coming from a lay person: any extended public-facing litigation will result in publicity, questionably negative.
Would this necessarily be a bad thing? Will it truly be negative or will it lead to a greater exposure?

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

I am not in the legal profession so please take my question as coming from a lay person: any extended public-facing litigation will result in publicity, questionably negative.
Would this necessarily be a bad thing? Will it truly be negative or will it lead to a greater exposure?

As a corporate lawyer and litigator, my opinion is that the litigation does not hurt. But is costly. It's the cost of having to re-brand if you loose. Changing a name, starting anew, lost name recognition.

Warning, I have not read the briefs. But the fact that Lucid has worked years on the Gravity and Google spent years on Gravity Inc, all out in the open, smacks of TM research negligence ans/or trademark litigation trolling.

 

[Sid432]

They filed patent to withdraw Gravity Inc

Lucid Faces Trademark Challenge Over “Gravity” Name for SUV

Lucid Motors is facing a challenge to its trademark for the name of its Gravity SUV, just months before the

evmagz.com

 

[Babyrocko1908]

As a corporate lawyer and litigator, my opinion is that the litigation does not hurt. But is costly. It's the cost of having to re-brand if you loose. Changing a name, starting anew, lost name recognition.

Warning, I have not read the briefs. But the fact that Lucid has worked years on the Gravity and Google spent years on Gravity Inc, all out in the open, smacks of TM research negligence ans/or trademark litigation trolling.

Here is Lucid's answer. It's good and they raise GREAT defenses -- no likelihood of confusion, Unclean Hands (damaging) and Laches (which I think is the dagger!) Check out the unclean hands defense. These folks attempted to extort money or other gain from Lucid for a trademark Lucid claims they they abandoned. Lucid also filed a counterclaim to cancel their Gravity trademark based on abandonment. This answer is

USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92083899

 

[xponents]

Here is Lucid's answer. It's good and they raise GREAT defenses -- no likelihood of confusion, Unclean Hands (damaging) and Laches (which I think is the dagger!) Check out the unclean hands defense. These folks attempted to extort money or other gain from Lucid for a trademark Lucid claims they they abandoned. Lucid also filed a counterclaim to cancel their Gravity trademark based on abandonment. This answer is

USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92083899

Oh wow- I thought they filed their trademark earlier, but it turns out they didn't! Of course the major news outlets won't cover this though, because Lucid is obviously going bankrupt because of this petition!!!

Lucid basically did a hardcore smackdown there, seeing as to how literally every single one of Gravity's (company) points has been refuted.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

Here is Lucid's answer. It's good and they raise GREAT defenses -- no likelihood of confusion, Unclean Hands (damaging) and Laches (which I think is the dagger!) Check out the unclean hands defense. These folks attempted to extort money or other gain from Lucid for a trademark Lucid claims they they abandoned. Lucid also filed a counterclaim to cancel their Gravity trademark based on abandonment. This answer is

USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92083899

Great answer @Babyrocko1908 . Of the defenses, Laches screams out to me. Where the F was Google these past years when Lucid was developing Gravity. Every TM lawyer knows that getting a TM is only the beginning. You must protect. Many great TMS were lost for the owners failure to protect.

As @Babyrocko1908 knows, all corporations wit TMs subscribe to expensive TM monitoring services, that scrub the internet and news releases daily for any mention of a company's TM, even for like sounding names. And especially for similar names in new TM applications

Most also don't know that the TM approval period takes a long time, with notice to all. Google sat on its Ass, did not oppose the Lucid application and now, in hindsight, likes the word Gravity.

A high percentage of TM litigation is trolling and blustering. And trying to outspend the other side. I see them weekly. I once had a TM case where a huge audio company sued my client for use of the word: Servo, as in Servo subwoofer. The Administrative Law Judge burst out laughing when I brought in dozens of patents and photos of 1880 steam locomotives, bragging about being Servo powered.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

Great answer @Babyrocko1908 . Of the defenses, Laches screams out to me. Where the F was Google these past years when Lucid was developing Gravity. Every TM lawyer knows that getting a TM is only the beginning. You must protect. Many great TMS were lost for the owners failure to protect.

As @Babyrocko1908 knows, all corporations wit TMs subscribe to expensive TM monitoring services, that scrub the internet and news releases daily for any mention of a company's TM, even for like sounding names. And especially for similar names in new TM applications

Most also don't know that the TM approval period takes a long time, with notice to all. Google sat on its Ass, did not oppose the Lucid application and now, in hindsight, likes the word Gravity.

A high percentage of TM litigation is trolling and blustering. And trying to outspend the other side. I see them weekly. I once had a TM case where a huge audio company sued my client for use of the word: Servo, as in Servo subwoofer. The Administrative Law Judge burst out laughing when I brought in dozens of patents and photos of 1880 steam locomotives, bragging about being Servo powered.

I was waiting on your expert opinion on this and as usual, you didn't disappoint. That laches defense is the dagger in my opinion. What would you raise and/or advise your client as a defense to Lucid's latches defense?