OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court

> 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

Someone finally asks some sensible questions, about hijacking of the term "open".

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.

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.

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.

https://domainnamewire.com/2026/04/08/u-s-defense-contractor...

Good. The trademark would ultimately allow them to sue any company for claiming it provides "open AI". So only right choice to reject it.

ChatGPT is a household name. And OpenAi is actually not, people outside tech don't necessarily know it.

Open source charity suddenly becoming capitalistic not going as planned

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.

They should just rename it to ClosedAI.

It would be more honest to their customers and better show who they are and what they stand for.

I wonder how that trademark logic would apply to something like OpenGL.

god thanks ClosedAI is still available

Trump administration intervening in ... 1... 2... 3...

Weird decision, if so I wonder what would they say about other trademarks like Apple..

[dead]

Touché

This seems like a bad decision to me that will ultimately harm consumers, if anyone can launch a product and say it’s made by “OpenAI”.

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 company. It doesn't mean I will want to use it, I may even want to avoid it, but I don't want it to be from someone else. By denying that trademark, anyone could call their product OpenAI, and I don't think that situation would benefit the consumer.

This feels like a slight misstep that could result in consumer harm. The name is incredibly vague, without doubt, but to claim "OpenAI" doesn't evoke a very specific company at this point in the minds of consumers seems myopic.

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", "AI" ?

EDIT add another example is Open Systems that has a office in Switzerland. https://www.open-systems.com/

The trademark registrations search results: https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/results?page=1&pageSize...

We can assume the OpenAI lawyers brought up these and other similar examples and the court rejected the past examples as a valid argument.