Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they could have used a less generic and misleading name (it is not very open, as noted in the article). OpenAI only really have themselves to blame here.
Give me a break. Apple doesn't sell apples.
[deleted]
OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
101–110 of 177 posts
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#102Someone finally asks some sensible questions, about hijacking of the term "open".
I seem to remember the company behind either Monster Cables, or Monster energy drinks, going after anyone that used the word “monster,” even in casual context.
or Facebook going after anyone with ...book in the name.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#103Earlier 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.
If the goal of a trademark is to get recognized then its futile given OpenAI is already popular. If the goal is to prevent others from using the term which is so generic then it does makes sense to not allow the common keywords being hijacked.
On a side note, the AI models from the company are not even open, one can go as far as banning it as inappropriate marketing (Product not matching the description).
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#104Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
>More pertinently "the term is purely descriptive and therefore lacks the distinctiveness required for trademark protection." 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 lev…
From the background information provided in the court decision:
"as regards the earlier similar registrations relied on by the applicant, the Board of Appeal recalled that those registrations did not represent current practice and case-law and that the legality of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal must be assessed solely on the basis of Regulation 2017/1001 and not on the basis of a previous administrative practice."
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
>More pertinently "the term is purely descriptive and therefore lacks the distinctiveness required for trademark protection." 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 lev…
Courts exist, among other things, to specify the rules in ambiguous cases. Rules will be ambiguous always.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#107Someone finally asks some sensible questions, about hijacking of the term "open".
I seem to remember the company behind either Monster Cables, or Monster energy drinks, going after anyone that used the word “monster,” even in casual context.
See also: Edge Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_Games#Trademark_disputes
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Everyone on HN knows what OpenAI is, but there are tons of people who use ChatGPT and either don’t know OpenAI or don’t know the distinction between OpenAI (the company) and OpenAI (the conjunction of two words)
The linguistic gymnastics required when talking about OpenAI vs ChatGPT and Anthropic vs Claude is difficult when you're giving talk about them. At least Google vs Gemini is a little clearer.
I mean, I get the rationale Company vs. Product, but most people know the product. As in "I used ChatGPT". But if you ask who OpenAI is, they'll have no clue.
ChatGPT is in someways nicer... because their models are GPT-5.3, GPT-5.4, etc...
But when you're trying to explain that the Anthropic models are called "Opus" or "Sonnet" or "Haiku" or "Fable", but you use them in "Claude", it gets confusing quickly.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#109Weird decision, if so I wonder what would they say about other trademarks like Apple..
I don't like the idea of trademarks that are so well-known that they apply in all fields. That doesn't serve the public. Companies that well-known can easily apply for a trademark across multiple fields. The trademark owners that would really need that kind of help are the smaller ones that aren't eligible for that, and must specifically register in various fields of industry.
IP law needs severe reform no matter which jurisdiction you're in (since the majority of the world signed the Berne Convention, the same reforms are needed everywhere)
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#110Weird decision, if so I wonder what would they say about other trademarks like Apple..
Apple is a valid trademark in the "computers" category, but would not be accepted in the "food" category. Here are the 13 valid trademarks in France containing the word "apple" in the same category as fruit: https://data.inpi.fr/search?advancedSearch=%257B%2522checkbo... None of them are descriptive of the actual fruit. "Apples in the Sky" is a valid trademark only because apples in the sky do not exist. If there was…
Waiting for Apple to enter the food industry, with a highly specific McIntosh-based genetic lineage that they dub the "iApple".