The United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected Neuralink’s attempt to trademark the product names Telepathy and Telekinesis, citing pending applications by another person for the same trademarks.
Neuralink, the brain implant company cofounded by Elon Musk, filed to trademark the names in March. But in letters sent to Neuralink in August, the trademark office is refusing to allow the applications to move forward. It says Wesley Berry, a computer scientist and a cofounder of the tech startup Prophetic, previously filed trademark applications for Telepathy in May 2023 and Telekinesis in August 2024. Prophetic is building a wearable headset to induce lucid dreaming, but only Berry is the author of the trademark applications, not Prophetic. (Berry declined to comment for this story.)
In response to Neuralink’s application for Telepathy, the trademark office also references the existing trademark for Telepathy Labs, a Tampa-based company that provides interactive voice and chatbot technology to businesses.
Musk’s Neuralink, meanwhile, is developing a brain-computer interface that involves a device, surgically implanted in the skull, that collects brain activity. The company has been using the name Telepathy to describe its first product, which is designed to allow paralyzed people the ability to operate their phones and computers with just their thoughts. Musk unveiled the Telepathy name in a January 2024 social media post, shortly after the company implanted its first volunteer with the technology. A total of nine people now have the Neuralink device, according to a July announcement. (Neuralink did not respond to a request for comment.)
Both Berry and Neuralink filed “intent-to-use” applications, which allow businesses and inventors to reserve trademark rights before using the mark in commerce. Berry’s application for Telepathy was accepted in December 2024 and for Telekinesis in August 2025 but the trademarks aren’t fully registered until he shows that he’s actually using them in commerce. Berry has three years to do that from acceptance, otherwise his applications would be considered abandoned and Neuralink’s application would take priority.
Berry has not marketed nor commercialized a product called Telepathy or Telekinesis, but in his trademark applications describes both as “software that analyzes EEG to decode internal dialogue to control computer or mobile devices.” EEG, or electroencephalogram, data refers to the electrical activity of the brain recorded through electrodes worn on the scalp.
The trademark office’s letters to Neuralink are not final decisions. Neuralink filed a response letter on August 28 addressing the existing Telepathy Labs trademark, saying that Neuralink’s Telepathy product is not likely to be confused with Telepathy Labs. Neuralink did not address Berry’s applications in its response.
“The standard for likelihood of confusion is, if a random consumer encountered both of these products, would they think that they’re coming from the same company?” says Heather Antoine, an intellectual property partner at Stoel Rives in Sacramento, California.
The trademark office will consider Neuralink’s response and decide if there is a likelihood of confusion. But there’s still the fact that Berry filed to register the Telepathy and Telekinesis marks first. If Berry succeeds in registering the marks, Neuralink would have a few options. It could attempt to buy the trademarks from Berry or negotiate a consent agreement, in which Berry could agree to allow Neuralink to also use the marks. These types of agreements are usually made when the trademarks are not likely to cause consumer confusion.
If Berry is successful in registering Telepathy, Neuralink could be sued if the company continues to use it.
Josh Gerben, a trademark attorney and founder of Gerben IP in Washington, DC, says it’s difficult to know how things will shake out because there’s a lot of nuance to a trademark claim. “Certainly at the moment, though, advantage goes to this other applicant,” he says, referring to Berry. “He could become a considerable thorn in the side of Neuralink in terms of these trademarks.”