General Motors is once again attempting to secure the rights to the ‘GMC Granite” trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), GM Authority has learned.
The automaker originally debuted a concept called the GMC Granite — a compact tall-ish hatchback riding on the Delta platform — in January 2010. Months later, a pickup variant called the Granite CPU followed.
So General Motors filed a trademark application for the ‘GMC Granite’ name in November 2010. The application was filed in the category of goods and services: motor land vehicles, namely, on-road passenger automobiles. The vehicle was reportedly green-lit for production in February 2011 until reports in March of 2012 suggested that the smallest GMC was canceled.
So in June 2012, the USPTO requested a Statement of Use (SOU) from General Motors. Those familiar with trademark proceedings will recognize that an SOU is a legal document that’s a necessary part of the trademark process where the applicant demonstrates the ways in which it is using the trademark in a real-world product or service. General Motors didn’t file an SOU, and thus the USPTO designated the trademark application to be abandoned in January 2013.
Then on February 20, 2013, the USPTO received a petition from GM to revive the trademark application, and on December 5, 2012, The General asked the USPTO for an extension to file its SOU. The USPTO granted the extension on March 12, 2013, and as of this writing, the trademark application has a status of 730, or First Extension – Granted.
The GM Authority Take
While some might chalk up trademark filings as irrelevant acts of reading tea leaves, we have reason to believe that it is anything but simply because the days of attaining trademarks for the sake of “protecting” a business or its intellectual property are long gone thanks to the USPTO instituting the SOU. Without this statement, which requires a company to be using the name in a real-world product or service, a trademark applicant simply won’t be able to secure a trademark.
And in the case of the Granite, it seems that The General had a change of heart: it first applied for the trademark in November 2010, but then canceled the project, and thus didn’t file the SOU with the USPTO — thereby abandoning the trademark application. The recent trademark-related activity, however, presents material evidence that a GMC vehicle called Granite is back on the roadmap. Whether it will be production version of the concept shown during the 2010 Detroit Auto Show, or something completely different, is a whole different topic.
To note, an applicant can ask to extend its time to file an SOU up to six times, each lasting six months — for a total of three years. As such, it’s very likely that we will see the GMC Granite announced or arriving in showrooms in less than three years.
[nggallery id=67] [nggallery id=219]
Comments
I like the concept behind this vehicle
My money says this is the new name for the GMC midsize truck, not a cube like cuv.
Maybe an encore based GMC? Or the replacement for the Canyon?
Right. I’m thinking that this would be on the Iota platform, with the Sonic and Encore. But I really think that GMC needs to step into its niche. That means, for example, that the next series of HD trucks should be GMC-only, as well as the full-sized vans. Perhaps the Chevrolet Traverse can even be retired in the next round of Lambdas, leaving only the GMC Acadia and Buick Enclave.
I’m with Matt and David, either one seems highly likely considering today’s market and trends.
I loved this concept the first time I saw it in person.
It would be so easy to do now with the Encore platform in a FWD.
The pick up version was even better.
But GM may have just picked up the option on the name too. Just because they pick up the rights does not always mean it will be used soon.
@HHRSS The Granite Concept was on the Delta (Cruze, Orlando, Astra, Zafira, Verano, etc.) rather than the Gamma (Encore, Aveo/Sonic).
As for picking up the rights to the name: if a trademark is registered, it actually *does* mean that it will be used. An applicant can not register a trademark without proving that it will use it in a real world product or service… that’s what the Statement of Use is for. GM currently has a bit less than 3 years to provide the USPTO with the SOU document to complete the registration of the mark — otherwise it will not be able to register the mark.
In other words, the filing described in the article is a very strong indicator that GM is planning a vehicle with the name, and that said vehicle will launch within 3 years (6 extensions each lasting 6 months to file the SOU).
My personal hope right now is that this will used for the name of an upcoming GMC CUV, rather than the production version of the Granite Concept. I am not convinced that a vehicle like the Granite Concept belongs in the GMC lineup, rather than that of Chevrolet.
Wow you sure put a lot of words in my post that were not stated LOL!
I just said I like the concept and the Pick up version with the expandable bed was less known but I loved it better. I never said they were going to do it.
As for use they may or may not use it. It could be something as simple for a replacement name on the Canyon to something more as bringing the new concept to life on the Delta II platform.
Yet it could just be as simple too as a name on a list. GM keeps many names listed as they are not cheap to search and file for. Many names can cost tens of thousands of dollars to do all the legal work to retain them. They do this with many names and most never even make it on a vehicle.
The fact is GMC will need smaller vehicles in the future and the concept would give them something different.
The reality is how many more Chevys do you want? There are so many models now that Chevy is getting lost in their own fleet. On the other hand GMC is much like Buick and could use some models all their own. GMC can and should be more than just pick ups and full size SUV models if you want them to grow.
Not only would the Granite be a benefit for GMC but for Buick since most not all GMC dealers are joined with them.
I also could see a GMC version of a Granite as a light delivery vehicle. The HHR filled this roll often in my area and around the country. Chevy already has the Nissan coming so GMC could fill a niche where Chevy is not involved.
I would love to see GMC get models that are not shared with Chevy to better set them apart. the re body of the truck is a easy profit but a popular model not shared would be a something to bring people into the GMC/Buick dealer.
Again if you do not remember the GMC Granite Pick up please revisit it. It would not be a cheap car for Chevy and would better fit GMC as a upscale vehicle.
I “sure put a lot of words in [your] post that were not stated”? I don’t think that I did in the least.
Rather, I specifically addressed two inaccuracies in your comment:
1. The platform underpinning the original Granite concept, and
2. That GM could simply be picking “up the option on the name”, and that just because “they pick up the rights does not always mean it will be used soon.”
The second statement, in particular, is incorrect — and I believe I addressed that in a very straight-forward manner.
In addition, the following is also a misconception of the trademark system:
“Yet it could just be as simple too as a name on a list. GM keeps many names listed as they are not cheap to search and file for. Many names can cost tens of thousands of dollars to do all the legal work to retain them. They do this with many names and most never even make it on a vehicle.”
As I already explained, a trademark can not be registered without filing a Statement of Use that demonstrates how the name will be used in a real-world product or service. So registering “many names” that “never make it on a vehicle” isn’t possible — since doing so would not allow GM to file the SOU in the first place, thereby preventing it from registering the trademark.
Clearing this up is highly important, since it is a common misconception of trademark law and the process behind registering the marks.
As for “how many Chevys do you want?”, the answer is “as many as a full-line mainstream automaker needs”. Outside of compact variants such as a coupe, convertible, or a 3-door hatch (Cruze variants, essentially), the only segment Chevy doesn’t compete in is the tall/boxy hatch segment. Kia competes in this segment with the Soul, and Toyota has the Scion stuff (branded as Toyotas elsewhere in the world). Why can’t Chevy?
It seems that the only argument against making the Granite a Chevrolet (with Chevy styling cues) is that GMC needs a new product to expand its already-limited horizons, which is a terrible excuse to mistreat your bread-and-butter brand. The mentality, in fact, is analogous to that employed with Saturn and Pontiac, both of which drained Chevy of better product offerings, such as the Solstice/Sky, Lambda-based CUVs, G6 coupe/convertible — all segments that should have been Chevy’s to fill, first and foremost.
Ultimately, GMC is an image-based brand. We all know that its offerings are slightly-modified Chevrolets, and that the only reason demand exists for them is that they might (yes, might) appeal to a different consumer based on taste, style, or general preference. That’s not to take anything away from GMC, but it is reality.
Meanwhile, Chevy is GM’s one true global brand (followed by Opel and Cadillac), and the Granite is the kind of vehicle that would be right at home as a Chevrolet — here in North America, and globally as well. Making it a GMC would not only limit its geographic sales potential, but put Chevy at a disadvantage as well… all in the name of “shoehorning” a product into the GMC lineup.
As for the Granite pick-up (Granite CPU) — it’s linked in the second paragraph of the article, and the photos are in the gallery as well.
In your perfect world GM would be better off with only Chevy and Cadillac. Most of todays MFG have two divisions for the most part and that way they can be what they want to be and not overlap. But being this is not a perfect world GM is stuck with Buick because of China and GMC as both are high profits in two different ways.
GMC need smaller and more efficient products. Also GMC can offer like Buick does in the Encore a much better optioned vehicle still well below the market average. Lets face it the Soul is what you pay for and not top shelf options and not top shelf quality.
Chevy got a Lambda as they just waited till they killed the Trailblazer.
As for the G6 convertible. A Malibu version would have not been cheap and sold no better. The price point at that time was not open to Chevy as they had to remain slotted under Pontiac and Saturn. Today that is not a problem back then it was.
Today they are going for different appeal at GMC but they are also still going for a higher transaction price. They make a hell of a lot more on each GMC sale vs. Chevy and that is profits they can not refuse. That is why they are still here and getting more investment. They make money and more per unit and that is the reality. To the point that is the point of the whole exercise of building vehicles is it not.
As for global there is not reason it could not rebranded as a Opel or Holden overseas. They already do that with other models Holden Malibu is not a Chevy Malibu etc. Hell we even have a Nissan Chevy now. There are no rules.
The bottom line is they can make this a much nicer vehicle not just for now but in the future like the Verano as there is upscale in this segment. In the future the small cars are going to be the norm. This would be a step at building the future as the Encore and Verano.
I want it as a GMC and you want it as a Chevy there is no right or wrong here just opinion.
Besides Chevy did not lose anything to Saturn. The Sky sales were small and at Chevy they would have not been any higher. Besides the Vette guys would never have let it in the show room. Trust me on that.
As for most cars coming to market names remain in flux often till late in the deal. GM keeps a list of names they can use and I am not speaking of trademarks.
A good example is the Fiero. The Name for the car we got in 1984 went through a few changes during development. In the beginning Fiamma was the choice later replace with Pegasus. You may note that the emblem was a flying horse.
Late in the program due to reasons that are still undisclosed the name was rejected either by someone high in GM or their legal department. I always assumed there was a conflict somewhere they did not want to mention.
They claim a late night meeting on the name and John Schinella claims he found the name at random out of a book after the group rejected the names GM legal approved.
Well the facts are this there was a list of GM legal approved names. As for the book John still makes this claim and says it means proud in Italian. But that does not explain the use of the name on a Firebird Show car in 1968-69. The Firebird Aero Concept or as it was called Fiero.
The whole point is GM takes in names for use often and that does not guarantee that it will be used. Often GM has list of approved names that Legal has already researched and approve. It can at time cost $10,000-20,000 to get a name cleared or so I am told by GM people.
Names also get recycled for later use if not used now. So you could be right it may be for a the new pick up or it could never show up at all as we will just have to wait and see.
Note the Fiero kept the winged horse emblem because it was too late to change in this case. It is rare it goes that late to change but if there is an issue they have to do what they have to do.
That was related to me by the man who drew up the emblem and the guy in charge of the ID package for the car.
Trademarks are different but can change to use if needed. It keeps control of the use of the name to protect it’s image but also protect it from use from someone else till GM may chose to bring it back. Most today are to protect the image but the trademark is a good way to protect the name from use too. MFG have stepped on other toes in the past to win the race for a name.
To me this looks like a GMC cousin of the Opel/Vauxhall Zafira and Chevrolet Orlando.
Why do you think Chevrolet should market the Orlando and this Granite concept side by side? They are too similar in their size and purpose.
Stick the Voltec drivetrain in there, with maybe a little extra battery for more range, and they might not have enough lithium to meet demand.
Maybe it’s the name for the GMC Variant of the Chevrolet City Express. Whether or not it’s called the Granite, GM better build a GMC variant. The day GMC loses a car in it’s market to Chevrolet is the day the GMC brand falls apart. Companies looking for a brand to cover all of their commercial vehicles will see that Chevrolet offers one more car.
I hope GMC does not ruin it’s rep. with this piece of garbage!!
When the Granite concept came out, I was really struck by it. It’s not just good-looking, utilitarian and (likely) economical, it has something GM does not have in any CUV: it’s supremely cool. This would strike a chord with a lot of non-traditional GM buyers who might be thinking of a Soul, Cube or maybe even xB. I don’t know if it should be a GMC or a Chevy, but GM does need to make this product and play in an area that they are not in and get noticed by people who, over time, will matter more and more.
Alex good find yes we will build a variation to the concept truck it will have great abilities for the small business type and small family cool camping traveling do anything truck. i think all will love look to next years autoshow circuit for an updated version. cant say much more yet. keep the comments coming…
Jd, that sounds awesome. “Cool camping travelling do anything truck”. Looking forward to the updated version next year!
This would make a nice up scales HHR replacement as people loved the HHR as it was different but most hated the low grade interior and bits. Most owners on the HHR forum would pay more for a higher grade and quality vehicle.
Owning a SS my self and a Terrain I can cay I wish my interior was as nice as the Terrain or present 2014 GMC truck.
I would not be surprised if it did live that the rear door gets changed. GM was working hard to make it happen before the program was shelved. The real issues is the ever increasing side impact standards and the added weight penalty to make it work.
GM has even changed the doors on the large trucks.
cool!!!!! Same color combo as my ATS….love the French doors 🙂
I cannot see it being a rebadged Chevy Citiexpress (itself being a Nissan) as its not rugged enough to be a GMC. I’d favor it being ether a small pickup or a sporty pickup (Maloo) if nether of them as a outside chance I’d say the booming crossover market (Encore/Trax)
I like the Sonic. It’s a nice vehicle for the young, and retirees. I like the Encore, (not the name though)… It has a lot of class. With a few subtle changes, the Granite, will make a tough guy GMC alternative.
As a retiree… I would drive anyone of the 3.
GM re-applies for the GMC Granite and Chevrolet Tracker trademarks at nearly the same time. Coincidence? I think not.
I’m not sure I like the idea of resurrecting the Tracker name. Pretty much everything is a retro name and I think that turns off a lot of young people that they really need to attract. Meanwhile, a new name indicates a new direction, not living in the past.
It depends on the name. If the name is old, but in good standing without any baggage, it’ll hold up for decades. The Civic for example.
If the name is old, but is stained with an image of low-end product, substandard quality, and baggage from over 40 years ago, it’ll be ignored and ridiculed as garbage no matter how good the product really is. The Monte Carlo for example.
Interesting example. I think Tracker had more of a rep for low end product and poor quality than the Monte Carlo. Maybe it would be a good subject for discussion: what nameplates are good to revive and which are not.
I think this is an outstanding concept. I sincerely think that this would sell like hotcakes if it looked just like this, I know I’d sure as heck buy one. It looks smart, sensible, and sexy. I really hope it gets built!
I presently own a 2013 Chevy Cruz with the 1.4 Turbo engine. Love this vehicle! It’s very responsive and handles well. This should be the platform of the Granite. I am a life long Chevy guy. Have a 1985 Caprice Classic Wagon that I just can’t bring myself to part with. I would have purchased the Granite in 01/13 if it had been available. Have owned Impala, Chevelle and several Caprice wagons over the years. Now I’m a retired empty nester who needs a efficient utility vehicle. I still do alot of gardening and other yard work, fishiing and camping all summer. I WILL buy the Granite if built.
What’s the latest on this? A seemingly hot lead has gone cold…