Neuralink’s Trademark Tango: ‘Telepathy’ and ‘Telekinesis’ Hit Legal Snags

Let’s be real: trademarking “telepathy” sounds like claiming the rights to blinking. But stick with me—this is where tech ambition meets trademark law and things get deliciously awkward. Neuralink, Elon Musk’s brain-implant outfit, recently filed to register the product names “Telepathy” and “Telekinesis.” Cue dramatic pause. You feel me?

What exactly did Neuralink file for?

In March 2025, Neuralink submitted trademark applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for product names including Telepathy and Telekinesis. According to filings summarized by Wired and others, Neuralink described Telepathy as “an implantable brain-to-computer interface for facilitating communication and control of software and hardware.” So yes—Neuralink’s version of Telepathy appears aimed at enabling people (especially those with paralysis) to communicate or control devices using brain signals rather than secret psychic powers. Hot take coming in 3…2…1: it’s ambitious and a little on the nose.

Why the legal drama? Who’s objecting?

Trademarks love déjà vu. The USPTO flagged earlier filings that could block Neuralink’s claims. Two players stand out:

Wesley Berry — a computer scientist and cofounder of Prophetic — had filed intent-to-use trademark applications for Telepathy (May 2023) and Telekinesis (August 2024). These predate Neuralink’s filings and could prevent the later application from moving forward.
Telepathy Labs — a Tampa-based company offering voice, chatbot, and conversational AI tools, already holds a trademark for “Telepathy.” The USPTO referenced this when reviewing Neuralink’s application.

Short version: Neuralink isn’t the only kid who wanted the cool playground name.

Why might the USPTO deny a trademark like Telepathy?

The USPTO evaluates trademarks based on several key tests—are the terms generic, are they descriptive without secondary meaning, and are they likely to cause confusion with existing marks? With Telepathy and Telekinesis, a few issues pop up:

Prior filings: Wesley Berry’s earlier intent-to-use applications create a direct legal obstacle. Trademarks are first-come-first-served in many respects.
Likelihood of confusion: Telepathy Labs’ existing mark could make consumers confuse Neuralink’s products with Telepathy Labs’ services—especially if both play in the conversational AI or communication space.
Descriptiveness: If a term merely describes a product’s function—say, “Telepathy” for a device enabling mind-to-device communication—it can be harder to register without proving distinctiveness. The USPTO resists giving monopolies on common language that others might need to describe their own goods.

Wired reported that the USPTO referenced these conflicts when reviewing Neuralink’s filings, and other outlets (Gerben Law, Envisage Law) have analyzed the uphill battles Neuralink faces.

Neuralink’s defense: Not gonna be confused

Neuralink isn’t doing cartwheels in public—corporate counsel filed responses arguing that Neuralink’s Telepathy won’t cause confusion with Telepathy Labs because the products and services differ. Neuralink pointed out that its implantable hardware and medical-device-adjacent services are not direct competitors of a Tampa-based chatbot provider. Makes sense on paper. But trademark law is equal parts logic and gut checks about how real customers perceive brand names.

Real-world example: Apple vs. Apple Records (sort of)

Trademark law is chock-full of “who used it first?” disputes. For instance, Apple Corps (the Beatles’ company) once tangled with Apple Computer over similar branding territory. The takeaway: even household names can’t assume they’ll win a fight just because their product is shinier.

So can Neuralink trademark “Telepathy” or “Telekinesis”?

Possible, but not guaranteed. A few likely outcomes:

USPTO refuses registration due to prior filings or likelihood of confusion.
Neuralink narrows its application to more specific classes or stylized wordmarks (e.g., a logo or a combined name like “Neuralink Telepathy™”) that dodge conflict.
Settlement or coexistence agreement with existing trademark holders—maybe Telepathy Labs lets Neuralink use the name in some contexts, or they split territories and categories.
Opposition proceedings in which the parties battle it out—and yes, these can get messy, expensive, and very public.

Given the public profile of Neuralink and Elon Musk, anything resembling a legal squabble will probably get more headlines than a sleepy district court case for another trademark dispute.

Why this matters beyond brand name drama

This is less about semantics and more about who controls the narrative — and the market. “Telepathy” and “Telekinesis” aren’t just flashy marketing terms. They hint at what Neuralink (and the BCI industry broadly) promises: mind-based interfaces that feel — to consumers and regulators — like sci-fi. If Neuralink nails those product names, it gains the advantage of owning the language of a new tech category. That has real value:

Marketing power: A single, memorable name can accelerate adoption and investor interest.
Category control: Owning the term could make it harder for competitors to use the same everyday language to describe similar features.
Regulatory optics: Unique product names help regulators, researchers, and consumers track what’s being tested and marketed.

But trademark law exists precisely to prevent unfair monopolization of language, especially when more than one company needs that language to describe their innovations.

What do commentators say?

Coverage from Wired framed the USPTO’s move as a cautionary tale: flashy names won’t override prior filings or cause-of-action technicalities. Law blogs like Gerben Law and Envisage Law dug into the legal mechanics—pointing out how intent-to-use filings and existing marks (like Telepathy Labs) complicate Neuralink’s path. FirstWordHealthTech and others placed the filings in the broader context of Neuralink’s clinical ambitions: the company’s product aims to help people with paralysis, which means regulators and disability advocates will also be watching closely.

Takeaways (with a wink)

Let’s unpack the main points so your brain doesn’t short-circuit:

Neuralink filed trademark applications for Telepathy and Telekinesis, describing implantable brain-computer interfaces and similar tech.
The USPTO referenced prior applications from Wesley Berry and an existing Telepathy Labs trademark, creating legal hurdles.
Challenges include likelihood of confusion and the risk that these descriptive terms are too generic for exclusive rights.
Neuralink could still win by narrowing its claims, negotiating coexistence, or differentiating its branding.
Why it matters: owning a term like Telepathy would be marketing gold and give strong category control — which is why competitors and smaller players are vigilant.

So, will Neuralink end up owning the word that used to belong in comic books and late-night infomercials? Maybe. But expect a legal fight, some clever lawyering, and a handful of headlines that mix patent law with science fiction. It’s trademark drama, with a side of transhumanism.