legal OpenAi Files UDRP On ChatGPT.com

[silentg]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641909055361875975

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=63936

 

[xcloud123]

will gptChat.com be the next？the new buyer just pay 1xxxx usd days before

 

[bmugford]

This one is interesting.

It is not like "GPT" is some naturally generic term for the field like "AI" is.

There was always going to be some risk to these domains.

It could really put the brakes on the "GPT" market IMO.

Brad

 

[magnificentdomains]

Can't imagine this udrp failing. Active TM and widely known.

 

[AEProgram]

If this action fires back, they could always blame the AI for filing this UDRP, even taking on the name of a law firm, without Open AI's permission.

 

[pb]

Makes you wonder why they didn't just register it prior to launch...

 

[bmugford]

This claim is probably slam dunk, but I am more interested in the pending TM application for "GPT" filed by OpenAI.

It seems like it would cover most, if not all, AI related use cases.
They have a first used date of 2018.

https://alter.com/trademarks/gpt-97733259

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_pre-trained_transformer

"Generative pre-trained transformers (GPT) are a family of language models developed by OpenAI"

Is "GPT" only an AI related term because OpenAI created it or did it exist before their usage?

If OpenAI created it for that usage, I don't see why the TM would be rejected.

I would be very hesitant to build on a "GPT" domain with that level of uncertainty.

Brad

 

[Kai W.]

Internet influence may not be representative of their control over this brand, and UDRP is more concerned with the timing of rights vesting and whether the domain owner is abusing it.
l In addition, keywords + AI applications for trademarks are very unlikely to pass, as mentioned in a rejection document back in 2019 regarding these names having a generic meaning rather than specifically referring to certain products or services. This also means that UDRP in the AI industry is not desirable. IMO

 

[bmugford]

Internet influence may not be representative of their control over this brand, and UDRP is more concerned with the timing of rights vesting and whether the domain owner is abusing it.
l In addition, keywords + AI applications for trademarks are very unlikely to pass, as mentioned in a rejection document back in 2019 regarding these names having a generic meaning rather than specifically referring to certain products or services. This also means that UDRP in the AI industry is not desirable. IMO

"AI" is clearly a generic term when it comes to artificial intelligence.

The question though is "GPT"?

Judging by OpenAI's TM application, it doesn't seem like they think it is.

If "GPT" is only an AI related term because they created it in 2018, they probably have a pretty strong case to be able to protect it.

If the TM is approved, I am not sure how aggressive they would be about it. But the question alone would make me not want to build my business on a "GPT" domain.

Brad

 

[Kai W.]

"AI" is clearly a generic term when it comes to artificial intelligence.

The question though is "GPT"?

Judging by OpenAI's TM application, it doesn't seem like they think it is.

If "GPT" is only an AI related term because they created it in 2018, they probably have a pretty strong case to be able to protect it.

If the TM is approved, I am not sure how aggressive they would be about it. But the question alone would make me not want to build my business on a "GPT" domain.

Brad

OPENAI has absolute dominance in the AI industry right now, but frankly I don't think they care about getting CHATGPT.com after they get AI.com because GPT is an industry-specific acronym and they have a well-known brand presence in that industry, which means chatGPT can't be used for conflicting projects, and right now CHATGPT is just TM, but it will become a trademark of openai.
I'm not optimistic about GPT's business, even without the presence of UDRP, the high cost of GPT makes the training cost of the model unaffordable for small teams.

 

[JDD]

If "GPT" is only an AI related term because they created it in 2018, they probably have a pretty strong case to be able to protect it.

I absolutely agree with you on this; the fact that the domain was only registered as of November of last year and the trademark was filled without a dispute against their first use in commerce date, should be an easy ruling.

 

[Recons.Com]

The AI wars

The Prequel to the Rise of the SkyNet

 

[JDD]

The AI wars

The Prequel to the Rise of the SkyNet

HAHAHA! I'm just waiting for the AI Terminator service to be released

 

[Recons.Com]

HAHAHA! I'm just waiting for the AI Terminator service to be released

))))

I mean, this guys are supposed to be smarter than us. Possibly, our future overlords, right? ) And what are we seeing? They are bickering over who owns gpt, chat, ai etc. terms.

What's next? Hiring divorce lawyers? I am just wondering if they'll come up with ones of their own kind or hire human bloodsuckers )))

 

[deluxekala]

usefull thread!

 

[bmugford]

At a cursory glance it seems like OpenAI created the "GPT" meaning in the AI field and everyone else is just piggybacking on the term.

I have seen other people call "GPT" generic in the AI field, but without any actual citation.

Does anyone have actual examples that predate OpenAi's usage starting in 2018?

Brad

 

[Recons.Com]

At a cursory glance it seems like OpenAI created the "GPT" meaning in the AI field and everyone else is just piggybacking on the term.

I have seen other people call "GPT" generic in the AI field, but without any actual citation.

Does anyone have actual examples that predate OpenAi's usage starting in 2018?

Brad

Creating a term is not the same as tm-ing a term. If you create a term that denotes and objectively existing phenomenon, then by definition it is generic and you can't own it. E.g. Einstein couldn't TM "The Relativity Theory".

 

[bmugford]

Creating a term is not the same as tm-ing a term. If you create a term that denotes and objectively existing phenomenon, then by definition it is generic and you can't own it. E.g. Einstein couldn't TM "The Relativity Theory".

They have a TM application for the term "GPT" in the AI field, so they clearly don't feel the same way.

https://alter.com/trademarks/gpt-97733259

If they created it and used it since 2018, I don't see why they could not TM it for that specific usage.

How would it be any different than software created by another party?

I have just not seen any compelling information that it is an obviously "generic" term.

Brad

 

[Recons.Com]

They have a TM application for the term "GPT" in the AI field, so they clearly don't feel the same way.

https://alter.com/trademarks/gpt-97733259

If they created it and used it since 2018, I don't see why they could not TM it for that specific usage.

How would it be any different than software created by another party?

Brad

You are probably right. It seems like it is not a phenomenon, but rather the name they just came up for their own use:

Generative pre-trained transformers (GPT) are a family of language models developed by OpenAI generally[clarification needed] trained on a large corpus of text data such that they can generate human-like text.

So, yes, definitely, defendable.

 

[bmugford]

You are probably right. It seems like it is not a phenomenon, but rather the name they just came up for their own use:

Generative pre-trained transformers (GPT) are a family of language models developed by OpenAI generally[clarification needed] trained on a large corpus of text data such that they can generate human-like text.

So, yes, definitely, defendable.

"GPT" itself is not an issue for some unrelated use, however when it comes to AI it seems like they have a pretty strong case.

It is not like "GPT" is some obviously generic term in the artificial intelligence field with generations of usage like "AI" is. As far as I can tell, the term is only used because they created it and have used it since 2018.

I think it is going to come down to how aggressive OpenAI wants to be.

Brad

 

[Future Sensors]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627710991676116992

 

[Andreas B.]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641909055361875975

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=63936

wow.
I asked myself why they did not buy the domain, before releasing their product chatgpt.

But now thats clear.

Either they did not bother to inquire, or they inquired but could not negotiate an acceptable price.

(although, as it seems, they paid 8 figures for ai.com)

The AI wars

The Prequel to the Rise of the SkyNet

according to its performance, gpt4 must be the birthday of skynet

some say, gpt4 is the prerequisite for real AGI (artif. general intelligence; intelligent as a human)

 

[silentg]

Asked Bing Chat:
https://www.businessinsider.com/his...esident-sam-altman-cofounded-openai-in-2015-2
https://stormgain.com/blog/who-owns-and-who-created-chat-gpt

 

[Keith]

I don’t feel bad for all the folks that wasted money on “gpt” domains. They did so solely because of someone else’s thoughts and hard work.

Let this be a lesson to all domainers. Be original and stay generic.

 

[Andreas B.]

I don’t feel bad for all the folks that wasted money on “gpt” domains. They did so solely because of someone else’s thoughts and hard work.

Let this be a lesson to all domainers. Be original and stay generic.

might be right to some point,
but you've got to see that there ARE indeed domainers that made a good dime with gpt domains...

(and the train has not come to a stop...yet)