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

 

[Mkt Sales Leads]

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

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

The next Meta.

Those that got in early and made a pile were extremely lucky.

 

[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.

 

[Grablink]

According to information on trademarkia site, OpenAI applied to trademark the term GPT-3 and that was on Mar. 16, 2021.

Before then, several organisations had earlier applied for either for GPT to be trademarked or GPT + KWs to be trademarked.

Based on this premise, i sincerely think this submission from OpenAI will only affect domain that has something to do with the language model like chatgpt, gptchat, chatgptplus, gpt3 etc.

Again if we are to go by GPT only, this also implies that those GPT trademarks that predated OpenAI equally have the right to challenge OpenAI too. My submission.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

It's theirs. Easy.

 

[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

 

[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]

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.

 

[karmaco]

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.

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.

 

[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/

 

[silentg]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1643634385999081473

 

[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

 

[NicTraders]

Apologies that this is a little OT, but it looks like OpenAI might be spending a bit of time in court... LINK I doubt a suit will be filed - either they'll apologise and he'll drop it, or they'll settle - but it opens an interesting can of worms...

 

[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.

 

[karmaco]

Apologies that this is a little OT, but it looks like OpenAI might be spending a bit of time in court... LINK I doubt a suit will be filed - either they'll apologise and he'll drop it, or they'll settle - but it opens an interesting can of worms...

Interesting to say the least can they be held responsible for things the bot compiled and composed…

 

[karmaco]

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.

Again they have been granted the mark. As mentioned its not about opinions. They cornered the categories of relevance. That being said, I believe they are probably fine with people who are paying customers using a gpt named site. Time will tell.

I also disagree about distinctiveness in this case. They are known worldwide in a short time frame. The term ChatGPT and GPT exploded when they released it 4 months ago. Nobody was talking about ChatGPT or GPT except perhaps insiders before the release earlier this year.

 

[alcy]

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.

lol what are u talking about this happens in every niche... that's domaining

 

[karmaco]

I don’t think its a waste I just think people will upgrade to better names eventually just like most tech companies don’t use tech in their name. Or a mattress company calls themselves Purple. Some that succeed will upgrade to stand out.

 

[AEProgram]

Chat is one of the keywords I look for in the drops. I already updated my code to ignore the domain if it has 'gpt' within it. I expect thousands of domains with the word chatgpt dropping a day starting within a year.

 

[NicTraders]

Interesting to say the least can they be held responsible for things the bot compiled and composed…

I certainly wondered that myself. And if not this one, at some stage I expect there will be some test cases that will begin to answer that question. In a defamation case like this I can certainly understand someone not being too happy about things.

 

[NicTraders]

Again they have been granted the mark. As mentioned its not about opinions. They cornered the categories of relevance. That being said, I believe they are probably fine with people who are paying customers using a gpt named site. Time will tell.

I also disagree about distinctiveness in this case. They are known worldwide in a short time frame. The term ChatGPT and GPT exploded when they released it 4 months ago. Nobody was talking about ChatGPT or GPT except perhaps insiders before the release earlier this year.

In a case like this, I wonder if it matters that GPT is an acronym that was already being used for other things for years prior?... I already knew GPT to mean "GUID Partition Table" used in hard drives. And of course there are plenty of other acronyms. Naturally, it would fail if anyone else held the TM already (so I'm sure they don't), but surely this would be something that would be taken into account?... Obviously the acronym has hit the mainstream as a result of OpenAI, though I wonder if acronyms are easy to trademark when they can be taken to mean different things to different people?....

 

[matemp]

In a case like this, I wonder if it matters that GPT is an acronym that was already being used for other things for years prior?... I already knew GPT to mean "GUID Partition Table" used in hard drives...

Trademarks are only for a specific field of use, so the fact that the acronym was being used in other fields wouldn't really be a factor.

The issue is that even within the field in this case, the G - P - and T are all fairly generic/descriptive terms, so merely putting them together like that will be hard to call "distinctive" enough for registration purposes.

 

[Digital Nomad]

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

It seems Bloomberg got their BloombergGPT trademark approved. Any many other companies registering keyword+GPT or GPT + keyword and they all got approved and are live.

Source: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search

 

[Keith]

It seems Bloomberg got their BloombergGPT trademark approved. Any many other companies registering keyword+GPT or GPT + keyword and they all got approved and are live.

Source: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search

Show attachment 236551

Show attachment 236552

No they didn’t

 

[Digital Nomad]

No they didn’t

true, they didn't, it is still pending, I have mistaken the "live" for approved.

 

[silentg]

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