> 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…
And to think that this could have all been avoided if they'd just renamed themselves something more appropriate after they decided to focus fully on developing closed models for profit.
OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
161–170 of 177 posts
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#162Good. The trademark would ultimately allow them to sue any company for claiming it provides "open AI". So only right choice to reject it.
Although courts make mad decisions sometimes...
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#163This means light green to all EU tech companies using OpenAI name in their products! Even though can´t say for sure if is good or bad for a company doing that.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#164The only problem I see here is the name doesn't reflect the reality. Time to put something in place that tells them to rebrand and continuously charges them for fraudulent misrepresentation or something until they do.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#165Earlier 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…
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#166Earlier 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.
IANAL but it AFAIK it does not work like that....
Yes, IN THEORY a registered EU trade mark can be attacked at any time through an invalidity action based on absolute grounds (Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR). If the mark should never have been registered because it was descriptive under Article 7(1)(c) or devoid of distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b), any person can file to have it declared invalid.
But, and its a big BUT...
Even if a mark was registered in breach of Article 7(1)(b)–(d) — i.e., it was descriptive or non-distinctive at the time — it cannot be declared invalid if, through use after registration, it has acquired distinctive character. This is confirmed in the case law, e.g., Adapta Color v EUIPO (T-225/17, 2019), which explicitly references this provision
So "Open Systems" might have started life as a descriptive registration, but if the holder can show that, through years of market use, consumers now associate the term with them specifically (as a badge of commercial origin rather than a generic descriptor), the mark survives.
This is exactly the defense that OpenAI itself tried — and failed — to mount in its application, but the evidentiary burden in an invalidity action against an established mark with years of use evidence can be quite different from a fresh application.
I suspect OpenAI's lawyers told them this but they were instructed to proceed anyway towards the inevitable loss ....
P.S. Is "Open Systems" even registered in the EU as a trademark ? I did a very quick search on EUIPO and could not find it ?
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I have grabbed a couple of USB-C Monster-branded cables at the hardware store, and they work great as replacement charging cables for my devices (Chromebook and Pixel phoned) for rapid charging at 6 feet rather than 3.
They aren't bad cables, they just are over priced. Decent warranty though.
https://www.engadget.com/2008-03-03-audiophiles-cant-tell-th...
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#168Earlier 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…
This sort of rejection is quite common. You can overcome the objection by submitting evidence that your mark has acquired distinctiveness through use. So there will be plenty of trademarks that seem generic/descriptive that have gone through that process. edit: I originally thought that’s what was being rejected here. It’s not. The court only ruled that “OpenAI” is descriptive. Separately, OpenAI have also submitted…
My gut feeling is on them loosing that one.
Stop most people on the street and ask them about "OpenAI". I suspect your average Joe would say "Who ?".
Continue the discussion with "have you heard of ChatGPT" and I suspect the answer would mostly be "Yes, I have".
OpenAI are applying for "OpenAI" in this trademark application. The fact they have a widely known product called "ChatGPT" which they actively market under the name "ChatGPT" does not and should not come into the thought process of any appeals judge.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#169Bummer that they didn't cite the product as being neither Open nor AI.
Re: OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court
#170Earlier 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)