91–100 of 177 posts
Someone finally asks some sensible questions, about hijacking of the term "open".
Preventing companies named [adjective]+[product/service provided] doesn't seem sustainable.
The story about the ruling really doesn't explain why another company called OpenText that's been around since 1991 and has a valid trademark registration in EU but OpenAI would be invalid. OpenText also has its Europe headquarters in Germany: https://www.opentext.com/about/office-locations Any legal guesses as to why those 2 companies are treated differently with regards to the very generic words : "open", "text", "…
Open AI has an independent descriptive meaning as composite term. You would practically trademark a whole class of products, not only a brand name. In contrast, open text is not descriptive in the sense of being a category of things. Therefore there is no risk that competitors would run into trademark issues by just describing their products. Also, trademark decisions are always contextual to their time. Today’s mean…
See my edit. "Open Systems" also had an independent descriptive meaning. The phrase "open systems" was a very common generic phrase in 1990s when companies talking about POSIX compliance was a big deal. (E.g. Microsoft touted POSIX in Windows NT.)
As much as I hate OpenAI for hijacking the term "open", and I love the idea of OpenAI losing, I am not sure if I agree with it. Trademarks are first intended to protect consumers, so that if it says Coca Cola, then the Coca Cola company made it, for the better of for the worse, but at least you know. OpenAI is already a well known name in Europe, and when I see OpenAI on a product, I expect it to be a product of that…
As explained in the judgement, being well-known is irrelevant. This is not about consumer protection, but about brand protection. You are right that the decision has the potential to confuse consumers. However, that is on Open AI, they should have consulted trademark lawyers earlier, and should have rebranded after shifting from open AI to commercial AI.
I am also not discussing about who is at fault, I agree that it is on OpenAI.
I just don't want, say, some company that is even shadier than OpenAI to launch an OpenAI branded protect with the intention to mislead people.
Maybe grant OpenAI the trademark, but do not allow them to use it on products that are not actually open, but I guess it is legally problematic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought you were joking, but that seemingly was the argument.
The argument doesn't hinge on whether OpenAI is actually open. Rather it seems to have to do with the name being insufficiently distinguishable from a generic term ("open AI"). I think it's a bizarre ruling given that everyone already knows what OpenAI is.
As such "everyone knows them" isn't a reason to allow a registration. It would just mean that blocking the trademark has no practical effect
ChatGPT is a household name. And OpenAi is actually not, people outside tech don't necessarily know it.
But people actively searching for AI products who are perhaps a little less technically inclined might. And if they stumble upon a platform that by all accounts seems to be affiliated with OpenAI, that could be problematic, especially with the level of trust people seem to be comfortable handing to LLMs.
They still have the trademark on their logo
> The EUIPO found that the word "open" would be understood by the relevant public as meaning freely accessible, while the combination with "AI" (artificial intelligence) would be interpreted as referring to products based on openly accessible artificial intelligence. > for certain software and information technology goods and services, the term is purely descriptive and therefore lacks the distinctiveness required fo…
More pertinently "the term is purely descriptive and therefore lacks the distinctiveness required for trademark protection." I.e. the problem isn't that OpenAI's products don't match their description, but that trademarking it would unduly prevent others from describing their openly accessible artificial intelligence as "open AI."
As I wrote in my other comment, "open systems" also can be purely descriptive and yet Open Systems seems to be a valid trademark in Europe.
I'm not defending OpenAI. I'm just confused that the rules for allowing trademarks for ordinary words and phrases don't look consistent at the surface level.
Weird decision, if so I wonder what would they say about other trademarks like Apple..
As much as I hate OpenAI for hijacking the term "open", and I love the idea of OpenAI losing, I am not sure if I agree with it. Trademarks are first intended to protect consumers, so that if it says Coca Cola, then the Coca Cola company made it, for the better of for the worse, but at least you know. OpenAI is already a well known name in Europe, and when I see OpenAI on a product, I expect it to be a product of that…
> Trademarks are first intended to protect consumers Huh? I thought they're intended to protect "innovation".