But it's not all bad as the USPTO green-lit 'Cuda.
FCA US shot themselves in the foot on this one. According to Allpar they applied for the Barracuda name back in January 2012 which was approved that same July with the caveat, pending use in trade. Meaning that FCA had to actually prove the name was tied to a product.
FCA applied for several six-month extensions, with the last being used in December 2014.
Fast forward to June 2015, FCA knowing their time was running out on the Barracuda name filed a new application. Problem is they never abandoned their first application, meaning when they applied a second time the USPTO promptly tossed it out for being a duplicate.
In better news though, FCA does officially own the 'Cuda name, albeit in a similar situation. They've been grated rights but once again with the caveat that FCA needed to show that the name was being used on an automotive product.
Which really brings us to the crux of the issue. There is no car, it doesn't exist yet and there is no 'real' time frame for its expected existence.
AP closes fittingly, "perhaps it is time to actually build the car?"
I've seen car makers talk about a car or hint about it, sometimes the former and leave people out of the loop for a long time before the process really ramps up and there's consistent action being taken to bring it to market, maybe that's what they should do.
what they should do is shut their mouths. stop talking about future product, just get to work FCA
very true, they need to be decisive about their intentions and bring more effective things to market. Should take a page out of books from other brands that just tell you what they're going to do and follow it through with action.