Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” trademark dispute to federal court

Companies seek declaratory judgment after TERA-print objects to planned use of name for semiconductor operation.

Tesla, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), and SpaceXAI LLC have taken a trademark dispute over the name “Terafab” to federal court, asking a Texas judge to declare that their use of the name for a planned semiconductor operation does not infringe trademark rights held by Illinois nanotechnology company TERA-print LLC.

The declaratory-judgment action was filed September 15 in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, in Tesla, Inc. et al. v. TERA-print, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02543. The dispute centers on TERA-print’s federally registered TERA-FAB mark, US registration No. 6,295,482, and Tesla’s planned use of the highly similar TERAFAB name for semiconductor-related activities.

The existing TERA-FAB registration was prosecuted by TERA-print under application Serial No. 87479644 and is registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Tesla’s Terafab applications

Tesla filed three US trademark applications on May 18, 2026. Two are word-mark applications: TERAFAB, Serial No. 99829877, and TESLA TERAFAB, Serial No. 99829887. A separate application, Serial No. 99829894, covers a stylized TERAFAB mark. The applications remain pending.

The word-mark applications cover semiconductor-related goods and services. The 99829877 application includes semiconductor chips, chip carriers, memory chips, integrated circuits, semiconductors, and microchips, together with distribution, custom manufacturing and semiconductor design, and research services.

The TESLA TERAFAB application similarly covers semiconductor chips and related goods, as well as distribution, custom manufacturing and semiconductor design, research, and testing services.

Tesla’s separate stylized TERAFAB application, Serial No. 99829894, covers distribution and custom manufacturing services involving semiconductor chips, memory chips, integrated circuits, and wafers.

TERA-print seeks additional protection

The complaint places particular emphasis on a trademark application filed by TERA-print on May 22, four days after Tesla’s filings. The application, Serial No. 99840889, seeks registration of TERA-FAB for additional technology-related goods, including capacitors, inductors, interdigitated electrodes, maskless photolithography tools, arrays, silicon chips, and glass chips.

Tesla and SpaceX point to the timing of that filing in their complaint. They characterize TERA-print’s move as “opportunistic,” arguing that it followed Tesla’s public announcement of the Terafab project and Tesla’s own trademark filings. That is the plaintiffs’ characterization, however, and not a judicial finding that TERA-print acted improperly.

The distinction is also important from a trademark-prosecution perspective: the May 22 filing is a separate application for additional goods, rather than an automatic expansion of the goods covered by TERA-print’s existing registration.

Cease-and-desist dispute

According to the complaint, TERA-print sent Tesla and SpaceX a cease-and-desist letter on May 23, the day after filing the new application.

The letter allegedly asserted that use of the Terafab name could create confusion with TERA-print’s TERA-FAB mark and demanded that Tesla and SpaceX stop using the name. The complaint states that, by June 10, TERA-print was threatening potential claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.

Tesla and its co-plaintiffs subsequently engaged in settlement discussions with TERA-print. According to the complaint, the parties met six times between June and August in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Those discussions did not produce a settlement.

The plaintiffs have now asked the federal court to declare, among other things, that their use of TERAFAB and TESLA TERAFAB does not infringe TERA-print’s trademark rights.

Two very different commercial uses

At the heart of the dispute is the relationship between the parties’ respective goods and commercial activities. TERA-print’s existing TERA-FAB registration dates from 2021 and is associated with the company’s specialized nanofabrication technology. The company markets TERA-Fab systems as desktop nanopatterning instruments for research applications.

Tesla’s Terafab, by contrast, is intended as a semiconductor manufacturing operation. Reuters reported that the planned facility is connected to a $16.8 billion chip-manufacturing project in Texas.

The plaintiffs’ case therefore places significant emphasis on the differences between the parties’ respective products, customers and markets. But the marks themselves are also strikingly similar: TERA-FAB and TERAFAB differ principally in the presence of a hyphen, while TESLA TERAFAB adds Tesla’s house mark.

The federal court will ultimately have to consider the relevant factors governing trademark infringement, including the similarity of the marks and the relationship between the goods and services at issue. At this stage, there has been no judicial finding of infringement, likelihood of confusion, or wrongdoing by TERA-print.

The timing could become significant

The chronology gives the case an additional trademark-prosecution dimension.

Tesla publicly announced its Terafab semiconductor project before filing its May 18 trademark applications. TERA-print then filed its new TERA-FAB application for additional technology goods on May 22, followed by its cease-and-desist letter on May 23, according to the complaint and subsequent reporting. Tesla and SpaceX argue that this sequence is relevant to the dispute.

For trademark practitioners, the case could therefore raise questions not only about likelihood of confusion between highly similar marks, but also about the significance of a trademark owner’s attempt to obtain protection for additional goods after another company has announced and filed for protection covering an adjacent commercial field.

The May 22 TERA-print application is currently just that — an application. It does not itself establish rights equivalent to those contained in the existing TERA-FAB registration, and the court has not yet ruled on the parties’ competing positions.

Federal litigation now underway

The case is at an early stage. The September 15 complaint initiated the federal action, and subsequent docket entries show that summonses were issued and the case was assigned within the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief rather than waiting for TERA-print to bring an infringement action.

The litigation could ultimately determine whether Tesla and its co-plaintiffs can continue using the Terafab name for their semiconductor activities without infringing TERA-print’s existing trademark rights.

For now, the dispute illustrates the difficulty that can arise when similar marks emerge in neighboring areas of technology — particularly where one party’s established mark is associated with specialized research equipment, and another seeks to use an almost identical name for semiconductor manufacturing and related services.

← Back to News