OpenAI applied with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to trademark “GPT,” arguing that the term had become uniquely associated with its AI models, such as ChatGPT, GPT-3, and GPT-4. However, the USPTO rejected OpenAI’s application, asserting that “GPT” is a descriptive term that does not qualify for exclusive trademark protection. The office determined that “GPT” is widely used to describe AI models across the industry, and allowing OpenAI to trademark it would restrict other companies from accurately labeling their products.
This was not the first rejection OpenAI faced. The company previously attempted to secure the trademark in May 2023, but it was denied for similar reasons. In its latest attempt, OpenAI faced a “FINAL” rejection from the USPTO, reinforcing the stance that “GPT” is too generic to belong to a single entity.
The Meaning of “GPT” and Its Common Use
“GPT” stands for Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a technology used in AI models to generate human-like text based on pre-trained data. The transformer architecture, first introduced by Google researchers in 2017, became the foundation for many AI models developed by different organizations.
Because this acronym describes a broad category of AI, many companies use it in their products. Examples include:
- GPTZero—An AI detection tool designed to identify text generated by AI.
- MedicalGPT—AI models specialized in healthcare and medical applications.
- ThreatGPT—AI tools used for cybersecurity threat analysis.
- LegalGPT—AI-powered legal assistance models.
The widespread use of “GPT” in product names highlights why the USPTO denied OpenAI’s trademark attempt. If OpenAI were granted exclusive rights to the term, it would create legal challenges for other businesses that use “GPT” to describe their AI services.
Why the USPTO Considered “GPT” Too Generic
Trademark law categorizes terms into five levels of distinctiveness:
| Trademark Category | Definition | Example |
| Fanciful | A completely invented word with no prior meaning | Xerox |
| Arbitrary | A common word applied to an unrelated industry | Apple (for computers) |
| Suggestive | Implies qualities of the product without directly describing it | Netflix (internet + flicks) |
| Descriptive | Directly describes a feature or function | “GPT” (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) |
| Generic | A common term for an entire category of products | “Computer” for a computer brand |
The USPTO ruled that “GPT” is descriptive, meaning it refers to a type of AI model rather than a distinct brand. A descriptive term can only be trademarked if it acquires secondary meaning, where the public strongly associates it with a single company.
The Challenge of Proving Secondary Meaning
OpenAI argued that “GPT” had acquired distinctiveness through:
- Its marketing campaigns and media coverage.
- • The popularity of ChatGPT and its other models is significant.
- Public association of the term with OpenAI’s technology.
Despite these claims, the USPTO determined that “GPT” remains broadly used across the AI industry and has not developed an exclusive association with OpenAI. “GPT” remains a technical descriptor, not a specific brand, unlike trademarked names like Google that have become distinctive over time.
The Broader Impact of This Decision on AI Companies
The ruling has significant implications for AI developers. Many AI companies have adopted “GPT” in their product names, and the decision means they can continue to do so without fear of legal action from OpenAI.
Had OpenAI succeeded in its trademark attempt, competitors using “GPT” in their branding could have faced lawsuits or been forced to rebrand their products. This decision allows open competition in the AI market and ensures that companies can accurately describe their models without violating a trademark.
For AI startups, this ruling serves as a reminder to choose distinctive branding rather than relying on commonly used technical terms. OpenAI has already recognized this, as seen in its branding of Sora (its text-to-video AI) rather than attempting to trademark technical descriptions.
Could OpenAI Still Appeal the Decision?
While OpenAI has the right to appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), its chances of success are slim. The USPTO has now rejected the trademark multiple times, making it difficult for OpenAI to argue for exclusivity.
If OpenAI does appeal, it would need to provide stronger evidence that the public associates “GPT” solely with its products. However, given the widespread use of the term in AI, proving this may be nearly impossible.
What This Means for OpenAI’s Future Branding
Without trademark protection, OpenAI may struggle to prevent others from using “GPT” in their product names. This could lead to brand dilution, where unrelated AI products use the “GPT” label, potentially causing consumer confusion.
However, OpenAI still maintains market dominance, and when most people hear “GPT,” they still think of OpenAI’s models. To strengthen its brand, OpenAI may:
- Focus on branding ChatGPT as the flagship name instead of “GPT” alone.
- Invest in distinctive product names rather than relying on general AI terminology.
- Increase legal efforts against misleading AI products that falsely claim affiliation with OpenAI.
Conclusion
OpenAI’s attempt to trademark “GPT” was denied because the term is descriptive rather than distinctive. The USPTO ruled that “GPT” refers to a type of AI technology rather than a brand, making it ineligible for exclusive trademark rights. While OpenAI argued that “GPT” had become uniquely associated with its products, the widespread use of the term across the AI industry weakened its case.
This decision ensures that AI companies can continue to use “GPT” to describe their models without interference from OpenAI. While OpenAI still benefits from strong brand recognition, it may need to adjust its marketing and branding strategy to maintain its competitive edge in the evolving AI market.
Need help with trademarks? Contact Stevens Law Group.
Trademark disputes can be complex and time-sensitive, especially in industries like artificial intelligence. If your company is dealing with trademark issues or needs guidance on intellectual property protection, Stevens Law Group is here to help.
With years of experience handling trademark applications, disputes, and intellectual property rights, our team provides expert legal advice tailored to your business needs. Don’t risk losing your brand identity—contact Stevens Law Group today for a consultation on protecting your intellectual property.
References:
– USPTO denies OpenAI’s attempts to trademark ‘ChatGPT’ and ‘GPT’
Leave a Reply