> 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 for trademark protection
edit: add the latter statement
jameson
Someone finally asks some sensible questions, about hijacking of the term "open".
zkmon
Key difference between the trademark systems here: in the EU system you don’t get a trademark by trading with a specific name and it then being recognized. It’s the other way around: the name must be unique, not confusing, and highly specific. It’s actually irrelevant whether a product exists or is traded at all.
Having gone through the process and gotten both approvals and rejections, the line is pretty clear.
summarity
We had a similar result when a big U.S. defense company (Kratos) tried to take our open source project's domain name: open.space
The panel ruled in our favor, that their OPENSPACE trademark is probably invalid because it is descriptive.
Good. The trademark would ultimately allow them to sue any company for claiming it provides "open AI". So only right choice to reject it.
goobatrooba
> 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.
mppm
This 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.
trilogic
ChatGPT is a household name. And OpenAi is actually not, people outside tech don't necessarily know it.
kzrdude
The 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.
skeledrew
I worked for an IT company named Open at some point, in France.
comments (10)
> for certain software and information technology goods and services, the term is purely descriptive and therefore lacks the distinctiveness required for trademark protection
edit: add the latter statement
jameson
zkmon
Having gone through the process and gotten both approvals and rejections, the line is pretty clear.
summarity
The panel ruled in our favor, that their OPENSPACE trademark is probably invalid because it is descriptive.
https://domainnamewire.com/2026/04/08/u-s-defense-contractor...
mrtnmcc
goobatrooba
Duh. The open in OpenAI isn't supposed to mean open. We've all been complaining about nothing.
mppm
trilogic
kzrdude
skeledrew
psychoslave