Did the EU General Court invalidate the OPENAI brand?

No. The judgment concerns only the registration of the word mark "OPENAI" as an EU trademark for specified goods and services. It does not invalidate the company's business name or its registered figurative trademarks.

Why was the OPENAI trademark refused?

The Court concluded that consumers would understand "OPENAI" as describing "open artificial intelligence" rather than identifying the commercial origin of the goods and services.

Does this affect OpenAI's logo registrations?

No. The judgment concerns only the word mark application. Distinctive figurative or logo marks may still qualify for trademark protection.

Can descriptive technology names be registered as trademarks?

Generally, descriptive signs cannot be registered unless they have acquired distinctiveness through use or are combined with sufficiently distinctive elements.

Does trademark registration in other countries guarantee registration in the EU?

No. EUIPO examines trademark applications independently under the European Union Trade Mark Regulation, regardless of registrations obtained elsewhere.

News & Updates

EU General Court Confirms Refusal of OPENAI Word Mark Registration

Oktay Simsek August 10, 2026 4 min read

Trademarks

The General Court of the European Union has dismissed OpenAI’s appeal against the refusal of its application to register the word mark “OPENAI” as a European Union Trade Mark (EUTM). In its judgment in Case T-555/25, the Court confirmed the findings of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that the sign lacks inherent distinctiveness for a broad range of artificial intelligence-related goods and services.

The judgment provides valuable guidance on how descriptive terms associated with emerging technologies are assessed under EU trademark law.

Background

OpenAI applied to register the word sign “OPENAI” as an EU trademark covering numerous goods and services, including software, artificial intelligence technologies, cloud computing services, machine learning, scientific research and related technological services.

EUIPO refused registration on the basis that the sign merely describes the characteristics or intended purpose of the relevant goods and services and therefore cannot function as an indication of commercial origin.

OpenAI appealed the refusal to the EU General Court.

Why Was the Application Refused?

The Court agreed with EUIPO that the relevant public would immediately understand the expression “OPENAI” as a combination of two ordinary English terms:

“OPEN”; and
“AI”, a widely recognized abbreviation for “Artificial Intelligence”.

When considered together, the Court found that the sign conveys the idea of “open artificial intelligence” or “artificial intelligence that is open or openly accessible.”

Because the goods and services covered by the application directly relate to artificial intelligence technologies, the Court concluded that consumers would perceive the sign primarily as descriptive information rather than as an indication of commercial origin.

Accordingly, the mark falls within the absolute grounds for refusal under Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation.

Registration in Other Jurisdictions Was Not Decisive

OpenAI argued that the mark had already been accepted for registration in several countries outside the European Union.

The General Court rejected this argument, reiterating the well-established principle that the legality of EUIPO decisions must be assessed exclusively under EU trademark legislation.

National or foreign trademark registrations may be considered informative but are not binding on EUIPO or the EU Courts.

Figurative Marks Remain Protected

Importantly, the judgment concerns only the word mark “OPENAI.”

It does not affect registrations for OpenAI’s figurative logo, which incorporates stylized graphical elements capable of contributing to the distinctiveness of the overall sign.

The decision therefore illustrates the distinction between protecting a descriptive word alone and protecting a composite logo containing distinctive visual elements.

Acquired Distinctiveness Was Not Determined

The Court also noted that EUIPO had not yet reached a final determination regarding whether the sign may have acquired distinctiveness through use.

Instead, EUIPO had decided to postpone that assessment pending the final outcome of related administrative proceedings.

Accordingly, the judgment addresses only the issue of inherent distinctiveness and descriptiveness, rather than whether extensive market use might ultimately justify registration under Article 7(3) EUTMR.

Practical Lessons for AI Companies

The judgment highlights several practical considerations for businesses operating in the artificial intelligence sector.

First, descriptive references to technologies or technical characteristics generally face significant obstacles to registration as word marks in the European Union.

Second, companies developing brands in rapidly evolving technological fields should consider adopting inherently distinctive brand names rather than relying on descriptive terminology.

Finally, where descriptive wording forms part of a broader branding strategy, protection may still be available through distinctive figurative marks or logos, provided the overall sign is capable of identifying commercial origin.

Significance of the Decision

The decision is among the first General Court judgments addressing the registrability of branding closely associated with artificial intelligence.

As AI-related terminology becomes increasingly common, the judgment demonstrates that conventional principles governing descriptiveness and distinctiveness continue to apply, regardless of the commercial prominence of the applicant.

For technology companies seeking EU trademark protection, the case serves as a reminder that even globally recognized names may encounter difficulties where the relevant public perceives them primarily as descriptive rather than source-identifying.