Rivian has asked the US Patent and Trademark Office to refuse a trademark sought by Provo, Utah-based Ravan, Inc., arguing that the name RAVAN would confuse buyers of autonomous-vehicle software and dilute its own brand.
Rivian IP Holdings, the Rivian entity that holds its trademarks, filed a notice of opposition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on October 14, and the board instituted the case the same day, according to the docket.
“Applicant’s Mark is the standalone term RAVAN, which looks and sounds nearly identical to the RIVIAN® Marks,” Rivian said in the filing.
The opposition targets every product in Ravan’s application, which covers software, computer hardware and firmware for autonomous vehicles and robots.
Ravan has until December 13 to answer, the board said in its notice of institution.
What Ravan Wants to Register
Ravan filed for the RAVAN mark on January 16, 2026, on an intent-to-use basis, meaning it had not yet used the name in commerce when it applied.
The application covers a single class of goods, Class 9, and was published for opposition on June 16, 2026.
Its list of goods includes “downloadable computer software for autonomous vehicle and robotic system data collection, telemetry, monitoring, configuration, software deployment, and analytics for software-defined vehicles and autonomous systems.”
It also covers “electronic control units (ECUs) being computers for vehicles and robotic systems,” vehicle and autonomous-system diagnostics software, software development tools and “downloadable firmware for vehicle electronic control systems and autonomous systems.”
Ravan’s website carries the tagline “Defining the Drive” and describes the company as “the innovation platform of advanced mobility.”
It pitches an “Advanced SDV Architecture” built on a “Zonal Control model” meant to replace “fragmented ECUs,” along with on-vehicle artificial intelligence under the banner “AI at the Mobility Edge.”
The site does not name executives, customers or investors.
Rivian’s Case
Rivian pleaded three grounds, priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, dilution by blurring under Section 43(c), and its common-law rights in the RIVIAN name.
“Both the Application and the Rivian Filings cover software, hardware, and technology relating to autonomous vehicles and vehicle operations,” the notice said.
Rivian argued that buyers could be led to believe Ravan’s goods “originate with Rivian or are otherwise authorized, licensed, connected to, or sponsored by Rivian.”
On dilution, it said the RIVIAN mark was already famous before Ravan filed, “due to the tremendous investment in, and visibility of” the brand.
The company said it has used the name “at least as early as March 2011” and called RIVIAN “a coined term” that is “inherently distinctive.”
To support its fame claim, the 19-page notice cites Amazon’s September 2019 order for 100,000 vehicles, Rivian’s November 2021 initial public offering and early investments of $700 million from Amazon, $500 million from Ford and $350 million from Cox Automotive.
It also lists awards including MotorTrend‘s Best Tech award in the automaker app category in 2025 and 2026 and Consumer Reports naming Rivian the “most loved” brand of 2024.
Rivian asked the board to refuse registration and sustain the opposition.
Ten Filings
The opposition rests on eight RIVIAN registrations, one of which Rivian describes as incontestable, and two pending applications.
The pending applications are RIVIAN AUTONOMY PLATFORM, filed June 5, 2024, and RIVIAN ASSISTANT, filed December 13, 2024, both covering software and related services.
The USPTO has issued a notice of allowance for RIVIAN AUTONOMY PLATFORM, according to the docket.
Rivian uses that name for the suite of driver-assistance hardware and software on its second-generation vehicles.
The filing comes as Rivian prepares to roll out supervised point-to-point driving and to hold its second Autonomy & AI Day in San Francisco on December 9.
A Filing on the Last Day
Rivian took the full time available to decide whether to oppose, according to extension records.
It first requested a 30-day extension on July 14, two days before the original July 16 deadline, and the board granted it until August 15.
On August 5, Rivian sought a further 60 days for good cause, saying it “needs additional time to investigate the claim,” and was given until October 14.
A Long Schedule Ahead
If Ravan contests the case, discovery would open January 12, 2027, and close July 11, 2027, under the board’s schedule.
Rivian’s trial period would end October 9, 2027, and final briefing would run until May 6, 2028.
An applicant that fails to answer an opposition risks default judgment and the abandonment of its application, the board said in its notice.
Part of a Pattern
The RAVAN case is the latest in a series of oppositions Rivian has filed against marks it considers too close to its own.
Rivian filed an opposition against DRIVIA, sought by DRIVIA Technologies, on September 2, and challenged the NEURIVIAN mark of Texas ad-tech firm GlassView in June.
GlassView answered on October 9, denying the allegations that Rivian’s marks are well-known and famous, according to the docket.
Earlier Rivian oppositions targeted marks including RIAAN, REV ION and RIVNN.
Rivian has also been building its own portfolio, including a new R4 trademark filed in June.
