Centauri
Established Member
- Impact
- 556
Because I'm a new member I can't post links. But I realized that you can directly find the David Michaels Tweets I referenced about a potential class action by going to entry #613 of this "GPT domains" thread (which is is halfway down the prior page of this thread--page 25--written by silentg) and clicking on the Tweet that silentg linked. The two Tweets that I referenced are in that Tweet thread.Just for everyone, who may have missed it on the previous page:
This would be great "IF" and I do mean "IF" we couldCasual domain trader. Casual reader of NP. First time poster as I thought this may be of interest.
From the Twitter thread of davidmichaels on 5 May (since I can't post links and just link to it):
"If you are a domain name investor or an OpenAI subscriber, Let me know if you are interested in filing a class action lawsuit against OpenAI and BrandShield."
"Brandshield's letters to users of domains comprising the word GPT have devalued the resale value of GPT domain names. That devaluation represents damages that owners of these domains have sustained. Damages under the Lanham Act and the Sherman Act are also available."
This would be great "IF" and I do mean "IF" we could
1. Prove that our sites could have sold for X if they would have not sent the letters. Maybe showing offers were rescinded?
2. Prove that the letters, and not anything else, "DIRECTLY" affected the domain sales. Again with #1, have proof from a potential buyer that they would have bought our domains but the letters sent by BrandShild called for them to decline.
There are many assumptions to be made and all have to be proven. Trust me, holding these names longer than expected sucks, but I don't see how anyone could win this case unfortunately without proof.
It's a gamble at this point, hold for 5 months or whenever the TM decision comes in and 10X all your prices immediately if the TM is rejected. If TM is approved...game over...
Sorry, I'm tired. I meant to say I only have a few "XGPT" domains.Good questions. I only have a few .GPT domains so I hadn't decided whether to contact the lawyer or not. But it would be interesting to know how they plan to quantify the losses.
Not sure why this was down voted. I'm guessing the down voters did not read the Trademark Petition decision dated 4/18/2023. The USPTO denied stating the following :This would be great "IF" and I do mean "IF" we could
1. Prove that our sites could have sold for X if they would have not sent the letters. Maybe showing offers were rescinded?
2. Prove that the letters, and not anything else, "DIRECTLY" affected the domain sales. Again with #1, have proof from a potential buyer that they would have bought our domains but the letters sent by BrandShild called for them to decline.
There are many assumptions to be made and all have to be proven. Trust me, holding these names longer than expected sucks, but I don't see how anyone could win this case unfortunately without proof.
However, your request cannot be construed as an informal petition to make special because it is incomplete. Specifically, the petition is missing the petition fee as required by 37 C.F.R. §2.6 and the appropriate documentary evidence supporting the justification of special action. TMEP §1710. You state that “OpenAI is taking aggressive action against the myriad infringements and counterfeit apps.” (Req. to Make Special.) However, you omitted the required supporting evidence of the action you have taken against the infringer, e.g., a copy of a relevant civil court complaint, cease-and-desist letter. See TMEP §1710. Instead, you have provided a declaration statement and web articles of your product and the alleged infringement. Unfortunately, a declaration and evidence of alleged infringement are insufficient, and objective documentary evidence demonstrating your efforts against the infringement is required.
That means absolutely nothing. It doesn’t mean they were denied. They were just denied a speedy trademark because they didn’t pay a fee. Has zero to do with if they will be granted the mark or not.Not sure why this was down voted. I'm guessing the down voters did not read the Trademark Petition decision dated 4/18/2023. The USPTO denied stating the following :
You can read the entire rejection HERE
Which is why OPENAI started sending out the letters via BrandShield.
Again, OPENAI has to prove the claims they have made. As would be the same for anyone seeking damages. Both require proof.
Because I'm a new member I can't post links. But I realized that you can directly find the David Michaels Tweets I referenced about a potential class action by going to entry #613 of this "GPT domains" thread (which is is halfway down the prior page of this thread--page 25--written by silentg) and clicking on the Tweet that silentg linked. The two Tweets that I referenced are in that Tweet thread.
You are half correct. USPTO cited :That means absolutely nothing. It doesn’t mean they were denied. They were just denied a speedy trademark because they didn’t pay a fee. Has zero to do with if they will be granted the mark or not.
Specifically, the petition is missing the petition fee as required by 37 C.F.R. §2.6 and the appropriate documentary evidence supporting the justification of special action.
I'm with ARCCLOUD on this. I have never practiced before the USPTO (anyone who has, please chime in) but I've worked with many other agencies in DC. If a company forgot to send in a filing fee it would typically be resolved with a quick phone call from the agency and the company sending the fee. It would be a non-issue. The USPTO rejected OpenAI's expedited request mainly due to lack of evidence showing that OpenAI was actively defending its TM claim.You are half correct. USPTO cited :
Which the documentation is the more important piece and why they started sending out the letters via Brandshield. Also, the majority of the rejection is USPTO advising OPENAI to prove this claim. They are basically starting over. It will be interesting to see this play out. As a owner of GPT domains I do hope it is rejected altogether.
The status of their trademark application has not changed. It is still pending and still has a first in use date of 2018. They don’t have to start over.You are half correct. USPTO cited :
Which the documentation is the more important piece and why they started sending out the letters via Brandshield. Also, the majority of the rejection is USPTO advising OPENAI to prove this claim. They are basically starting over. It will be interesting to see this play out. As a owner of GPT domains I do hope it is rejected altogether.
Can you please share where I made the false claim? Most of what I wrote is directly quoted in the Petition response. If you are referring to my quote "They are basically starting over", I am referring to the trademark process. They were DENIED a speedy trademark assessment which the USPTO gave their reasons. After, OPENAI started sending out via Bransdhield letters.The status of their trademark application has not changed. It is still pending and still has a first in use date of 2018. They don’t have to start over.
Its just in line like all others to be approved. Not fast tracked. Stop making false claims when you obviously don’t have the most basic understanding of trademark law.
The phrase "basically starting over" likely refers to the idea that OpenAI has to provide more evidence or revise their claim/application in such a way that it's almost like starting from scratch. This might involve compiling additional documentation, reworking their argument or claim, or otherwise going back to the drawing board in order to meet the USPTO's standards or requirements.
The status of their trademark application has not changed. It is still pending and still has a first in use date of 2018. They don’t have to start over.
Its just in line like all others to be approved. Not fast tracked. Stop making false claims when you obviously don’t have the most basic understanding of trademark law.
Can you please post the link?Casual domain trader. Casual reader of NP. First time poster as I thought this may be of interest.
From the Twitter thread of davidmichaels on 5 May (since I can't post links and just link to it):
"If you are a domain name investor or an OpenAI subscriber, Let me know if you are interested in filing a class action lawsuit against OpenAI and BrandShield."
"Brandshield's letters to users of domains comprising the word GPT have devalued the resale value of GPT domain names. That devaluation represents damages that owners of these domains have sustained. Damages under the Lanham Act and the Sherman Act are also available."
Can you please post the link?