Rivian has asked the USPTO to block RAVAN, a name proposed for software and hardware used in autonomous vehicles and robotic systems. Its intellectual property company argues that the name could make buyers believe the technology comes from, or is connected to, Rivian.
Rivian Targets RAVAN’s Vehicle and Robotics Technology
On October 14, 2026, Rivian IP Holdings, LLC, a Delaware company with a place of business in Plymouth, Michigan, filed a notice of opposition against RAVAN with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. On the other side is Ravan, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a business address in Provo, Utah.
Ravan’s application describes tools for machines that drive and move on their own. It covers software that collects data and telemetry from autonomous vehicles and robotic systems, tools for monitoring and configuring those systems, and software for deployment and analytics. It also reaches the physical layer: electronic control units, computer hardware, diagnostics and calibration software, development tools and firmware.
All of those goods sit in Class 9 of the application, and Rivian’s filing asks the Board to sustain the opposition and refuse registration for every one of them.
Rivian’s case rests on a combination: two names that, in its telling, look and sound alike, attached to technology that would do closely related work in the same kind of vehicle. Whether the Board agrees depends on the two claims Rivian pleaded, likelihood of confusion and dilution.
How the Board Will Assess Confusion and Dilution
A TTAB proceeding answers one question: whether a mark can be registered. The Board cannot decide who may use a name, find infringement, order someone to stop using a mark, or award damages or attorney’s fees. Those questions belong in federal or state court, so a Rivian win here would deny Ravan a federal registration and leave any fight over use for a separate lawsuit.
Ravan filed its application on January 16, 2026, under Section 1(b), which allows a filing based on a good-faith intent to use the mark. The USPTO published the application for opposition on June 16, 2026, and Rivian filed its opposition on October 14, 2026. The case is at the answer stage, with Ravan’s response due in December 2026 under the Board’s initial schedule.
When I prepare a likelihood of confusion analysis, I start where the USPTO starts: how the marks compare in sound, appearance, meaning and overall commercial impression, and how closely the goods relate. Rivian alleges that RAVAN resembles RIVIAN in sound, appearance and commercial impression. It also alleges overlap in software and hardware for autonomous vehicles and vehicle operation, along with purchasers and trade channels the two companies could share.
Priority is the other half of that claim. Rivian pleads use of RIVIAN since at least March 2011, eight registrations, two pending applications including RIVIAN AUTONOMY PLATFORM, and common-law rights based on that claimed earlier use.
Rivian’s second claim, dilution by blurring, asks a different question. Dilution protects only marks that the general U.S. consuming public widely recognizes, and blurring concerns the gradual weakening of that mark’s distinctiveness, with or without confusion.
My guide to how confusion and dilution protect different interests explains how the two claims differ. Rivian alleges RIVIAN became famous before Ravan filed, and it points to investment, vehicle orders, publicity and awards. It will need evidence showing that this investment and publicity produced recognition at that level.
If Ravan answers, the discovery that follows will build that record: how purchasers actually encounter each name, whether the goods move through the same channels, and how far RIVIAN’s recognition reaches. Under the Board’s initial schedule, briefing runs into 2028.
Vehicle Brands Also Identify Software Platforms
On March 11, 2025, Rivian published an explanation of its integrated autonomy platform describing a system it built in-house from 11 cameras, 5 radars, an onboard computer and machine-learning models it trains itself. Its Enhanced Highway Assist feature on second-generation R1 vehicles lets drivers take their hands off the wheel while they keep their eyes on the road, and at launch it covered about 135,000 miles of highway in the U.S. and Canada.
That description treats driving features as software running on dedicated hardware. Rivian rated the onboard computer at more than 200 trillion operations per second. Over-the-air software updates improve the platform, according to Rivian, so the system a buyer owns keeps changing after delivery. A name on that kind of product identifies a whole stack: the vehicle, its computer and the code updated on it. Rivian has also applied to register RIVIAN AUTONOMY PLATFORM for autonomous-driving software and hardware, and RIVIAN ASSISTANT for AI software used in automotive systems, which puts its own name on the layer Ravan’s goods would serve.
Ravan’s application claims goods for that same environment, from telemetry and configuration tools to control units and firmware. Rivian builds vehicles, while Ravan’s filing describes tools for autonomous vehicles and robotic systems. A technology brand can still surface inside a vehicle system as a supplier’s component, a licensed module or a platform service. Each of those routes puts a second brand in front of the same buyer. Rivian alleges that buyers could assume a connection with Rivian, such as licensing or sponsorship.
Shared buying settings came up in my look at technology brands reaching overlapping buyers through marketplaces, partner directories and conferences. When two products reach the same buyers, those buyers get more occasions to see both names and connect them. A supplier naming tools for the vehicle stack is choosing a name that buyers may read against the vehicle brands around it.
Test the Name Against the Product You Plan to Build
Before I search a proposed technology name, I want a written description of what the name will identify. Is it a company name, a product, a software platform or a service? What does the product do, who buys it, and what will the business realistically add over the next few years? A name that works for diagnostic software can run into trouble once the same business adds control hardware.
With that description in hand, the search starts with the exact spelling and moves to plausible pronunciations and spelling variants. A changed vowel or letter does not settle anything by itself, because names that sound alike can still conflict. Each hit then gets read against the goods it covers.
Next comes a map of goods and services, built before the search narrows by class. Classes help organize a search, but a class number does not decide whether two products are related. For a vehicle-technology business, that map might cover software, vehicle hardware, platform services and the suppliers working around them, depending on what the business plans to sell. A telemetry tool sold to fleet operators, for example, may sit next to vehicle hardware in the same purchasing decision.
From there, the search widens: I check registered and pending federal marks, state records and common-law uses, since earlier unregistered use can affect rights tied to a federal registration. An open domain answers none of those questions, and the Groq Health settlement shows why an available domain leaves trademark risk unresolved.
Once the review is done, write it down: the search date, the relevant hits, the goods compared and any open questions. Keep dated copies of the naming decision and of early examples of use. When the product changes, that record lets the business revisit the assessment instead of starting over.
The last step is assigning someone on the team to watch new applications and publications for similar names, flag a conflicting filing for legal review, and keep the calendar for any response deadline. An opposition window opens when a mark is published, so a publication nobody reviews can pass before anyone acts.
Review the Name Before the Launch Commits You
If your team is close to approving a name for a vehicle, robotics or software product, review it before packaging, product interfaces and partner materials carry it. Changing a name after those commitments can mean redesigned materials, updated software screens and new conversations with partners, and each launch step adds to that bill.
I help businesses evaluate proposed names through federal, state, common-law and internet searches, followed by a written report of the findings and advice on any conflicts the search turns up. When a name is ready to file, I prepare the federal trademark application, including the class selection, and I can monitor new USPTO filings for similar marks once yours is on record.
Before you commit, contact my office to discuss your proposed name and the goods or services you plan to offer. Bring a short description of what the product does and who will buy it.
