I worked for an IT company named Open at some point, in France.
OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
141–150 of 177 posts
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
The fact that Open Systems hold a trademark on "Open Systems" is less a signal that OpenAI should be allowed to hold "Open AI", and more a sign that Open Systems should start considering changing their name because they'd lose their trademark if someone disputed it.
Does EU court follow stare decisis, given that most member states follow civil law?
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#143> 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…
This seems pretty silly.
Extremely silly.
Take, for example, OpenText. [1]
Nothing about it is free, or open source code, or in any other sense publicly accessible. [2]
I don't know if they operate in the EU, but I presume any application for a trademark would be rejected.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenText
[2] It's "Open" as it turns paper documents into more easily accessible digital formats. But not public in any way.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#144This article is somewhat misleading.
The court only ruled that "OpenAI" is descriptive. It did not rule that it can never be registered.
A descriptive trademark can still be registered with evidence that the mark has become distinctive through use -- that is, that "OpenAI" is known to the general public to refer to their company, rather than simply describing a type of AI.
It appears OpenAI have already made that submission separately:
> The Board of Appeal also stated that, once the contested decision has become final, the proceedings will resume for the purposes of examining the applicant’s alternative claim based on Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, relating to distinctive character acquired through use.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#145> OpenAI had argued that the word "open" has multiple possible meanings and that "OPENAI" is a coined term without a fixed meaning. Duh. The open in OpenAI isn't supposed to mean open . We've all been complaining about nothing.
Open can have many meanings. Publicly accessible is one of those.
What does OpenText mean? [1]
They do a lot of classified work for the US government.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#146Yes.
"Closed AI" would be a better name
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems pretty silly.
Extremely silly. Take, for example, OpenText. [1] Nothing about it is free, or open source code, or in any other sense publicly accessible. [2] I don't know if they operate in the EU, but I presume any application for a trademark would be rejected. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenText [2] It's "Open" as it turns paper documents into more easily accessible digital formats. But not public in any way.
The purpose of the company is also rarely defined by it's name. Brands aren't inherently descriptive and it's normal for companies to evolve over time.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#148Earlier 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)
I literally had a non technical family member ask me last week about “AI”.
He began the conversation by saying: “so as far as I know there’s two kinds of ai, open ai and closed ai…”
This speaks to your point, the people are confused.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extremely silly. Take, for example, OpenText. [1] Nothing about it is free, or open source code, or in any other sense publicly accessible. [2] I don't know if they operate in the EU, but I presume any application for a trademark would be rejected. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenText [2] It's "Open" as it turns paper documents into more easily accessible digital formats. But not public in any way.
The purpose of the company is also rarely defined by it's name. Brands aren't inherently descriptive and it's normal for companies to evolve over time.
You mean Shell doesn't sell sea shells? [1]
[1] Actually it originally did in 1833. It doesn't today. But that’s still the name.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being well known is not part of determining if a trademark is valid
It is, though: https://guidelines.euipo.europa.eu/2319054/2227105/trade-mar...
That appears to be saying you cannot make a trademark of something that is well known to be used by someone else, which is very different from needing the new trademark you are trying to register to be well known.