Openai cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

OpenAI has failed in its attempt to register its name as a trademark within the European Union. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) rejected the application, with the decision upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case number T-555/25. OpenAI sought to register “OPENAI” for classes 9, 38, 42, and 45, which cover software, telecommunications, scientific services, and more. However, the court ruled that the term is descriptive rather than distinctive and therefore ineligible for registration under EU trademark law. The ruling was based on the principle that terms describing products or services relevant to a target audience cannot be registered as trademarks. For example, “APPLE” could not be registered as a trademark for fruit because the word directly refers to the product. Conversely, “Apple” can be used as a trademark for music records since it does not commonly describe such items. This distinction allows multiple entities to use the same mark for different categories of goods and services. In this case, the EUIPO determined that “open ai” in English conveys the meaning of “freely accessible artificial intelligence,” which would prevent others from offering similar services under the same name. Therefore, the registration of “OPENAI” for classes 9, 42, and 45 was deemed invalid. The court confirmed that the term lacks distinctiveness and is thus unsuitable for trademark protection. The EUIPO identified the target audience as the English-speaking population, including both private individuals and professionals. OpenAI did not contest this definition. The office further noted that the term “open ai” is understood as referring to freely available AI technology, making it inappropriate for trademark registration. The court emphasized that even if the term had some other meanings, the possibility of one interpretation is sufficient to disqualify it. OpenAI argued that it had successfully registered the name in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and Singapore. However, the CJEU dismissed this point, stating that the EUIPO must apply EU law independently. OpenAI also claimed that the EUIPO had previously approved similar applications, but the court clarified that past decisions do not justify current registrations. It pointed out that the examples cited by OpenAI were granted directly, and neither the appellate chamber nor the court is bound by previous rulings. Additionally, OpenAI attempted to argue that “open ai” and “OPENAI” are two entirely separate concepts, suggesting that the capitalization difference makes them distinguishable. The court rejected this, noting that the general public does not engage in detailed grammatical analysis when encountering such terms. The court concluded that the term’s potential for description outweighed any claims of uniqueness. The ruling underscores the strict criteria for trademark eligibility under EU law, particularly regarding the requirement for a mark to be distinctive. While OpenAI continues to operate as a leading AI company, its inability to secure a trademark for its name highlights the challenges faced by tech firms seeking legal protections in international markets. The outcome may influence future trademark applications, especially for companies operating in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence.