legal OpenAi Files UDRP On ChatGPT.com

[silentg]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1641909055361875975

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

 

[pb]

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

 

[silentg]

Salesforce Announces Einstein GPT, the World’s First Generative AI for CRM​

https://www.salesforce.com/news/press-releases/2023/03/07/einstein-generative-ai/

 

[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".

 

[BocaVision]

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".

Many brands have unveiled their "GPT" site.
Including SalesForce, launched EinsteinGPT - Bloomberg, BloombergGPT, etc

 

[magnificentdomains]

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

 

[NickB]

If I owned this domain I would get ChatGPT to write my defence - your going to lose it anyway, may as well go out with a bang......

"The domain name "chatgpt.com" is a combination of the words "chat" and "GPT," which is an acronym for Generative Pre-trained Transformer. GPT technology is a specific type of artificial intelligence language model that has gained significant attention and popularity in recent years.

The registrant of "chatgpt.com" may have a legitimate interest in the domain name for various reasons. One such reason is the potential for chatbots and related services that utilize GPT technology. The domain name may be used to provide a platform for these services, which could have significant commercial value."

Expand on the above and let it come up with some BS excuse about the TM.....

"First and foremost, it is important to note that the complainant's trademark does not necessarily give them exclusive rights to the term "GPT." "GPT" is an acronym for "Generative Pre-trained Transformer," which is a type of artificial intelligence language model. The term "GPT" is therefore descriptive and should not be exclusively owned by any one entity.

Furthermore, the complainant's trademark does not appear to be identical to the domain name "chatgpt.com." While the domain name does contain the term "GPT," it is combined with the term "chat," which creates a distinct and separate entity. The domain name is not identical to the complainant's trademark, and therefore the complainant cannot claim exclusive rights to the domain name."

 

[matemp]

It doesn’t matter what you think they have been granted a trademark first in use date of 2018 on both GPT and ChatGPT. They also have a GPT 3 mark.

While there are two other GPT marks live (in other categories) and at least one pending the problem as I see it is the two categories they selected to establish the marks encompass everything these GPT knock offs will try to piggyback off of. The categores matter.

It can get very messy depending on how aggressively they defend their marks.

The 2018 use-date won't matter unless they can also show that the term is truly "distinctive" to their company, which is required under trademark law for obtaining (and keeping) a trademark registration.

That "distinctiveness" is harder to achieve or maintain for terms that are inherently generic/descriptive, because at least a significant portion of the term's usage among the public will tend to be broader. It's really getting harder and harder to deny that "GPT" has a broader meaning in the AI field. OpenAI pioneered this kind of A.I. technology, but now others have their own generative pre-trained transformers too...

It'd sorta be like saying that the first company to make a search engine could trademark the term "search engine" even after other companies were making their own search engines...

I predict that OpenAI will be granted their application for "ChatGPT," and maybe even their numbered GPT versions ("GPT-n series"), but not just "GPT" itself.

 

[matemp]

NickB makes some good points. I'll add:

To be able to register a trademark in the U.S., the applicant has to show that the proposed trademark is in fact "distinctive" of their company. The more generic a term is in its field, whether to begin with (i.e., by not becoming distinctive in the first place...), or over time (i.e., by failing to maintain its distinctiveness), the less likely it is to be registerable. Such "distinctiveness" is notably harder to achieve and/or maintain for terms that are more generic/descriptive rather than truly unique.

In the case of "ChatGPT," OpenAI might have a stronger argument than with simply "GPT" itself.

In the case of "GPT," in the context of software (specifically A.I.), those letters -- particularly in that combination -- are understood to stand for things that refer to a kind of A.I. language model having certain characteristics, even though OpenAI was first to produce a (g)enerative (p)retrained (t)ransformer and they're still the most notable provider of such technologies. Hence, I don't think that particular trademark application should be granted.

 

[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

 

[Recons.Com]

The AI wars

The Prequel to the Rise of the SkyNet

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[Jay]

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.

 

[Jay]

The AI wars

The Prequel to the Rise of the SkyNet

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

 

[Fayaz Ahmed]

As others have already mentioned, if GPT trademark is give to OpenAI, and I don't see why they shouldn't be given for the stated purposes, then all the GPT suffix/prefix domain names are basically screwed. And such names will fade away soon enough.

Excerpt from this link: https://alter.com/trademarks/gpt-97733259

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[karmaco]

If this one wins they can easy peasy get any other chatgpt or gpt names they want. I didn’t register a one.

I likened it to Meta in my mind. You need to tread very carefully on names when a phenomenon happens as quickly as it did as far as name recognition being instant. The date of use being accepted as 2018 is very pertinent as well.

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

 

[silentg]

GPT .mobi didn't drop. It is protected by the Identity Digital DPML Brand Protection policy

 

[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 )))

 

[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