The “Open AI” mark isn’t valid because OAI and its founder, Guy Ravine, intended to deceive the US Patent and Trademark Office by submitting examples of a product that didn’t exist at the time of application, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said in a Monday order granting summary judgment. Rogers also found OAI infringed the “OpenAI” mark because the company expanded into the AI tools market after OpenAI secured rights in the name.
Rogers permanently barred OAI and Ravine from using the “Open AI” mark and vacated a jury trial set to begin in October in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
The court “ignored much of the evidence,” OAI and Ravine’s counsel Greg Gilchrist of Verso Law Group LLP, said in an email. They “will be pursuing every available avenue, including appeal, to ensure the true facts are understood and our clients’ rights are vindicated,” he said.
“We’re grateful for the court’s ruling allowing us to protect the OpenAI name and avoid confusion for our users,” an OpenAI spokesperson said in an email.
The decision comes two weeks after a hearing when Rogers indicated she’d rule in OpenAI’s favor. OAI argued the case should’ve been tried before a jury to review whether Ravine intended to deceive the PTO and whether OpenAI’s name had acquired rights to enforce the name.
The controversy started in March 2015 when Ravine registered the domain “open.ai.” After OpenAI launched in December 2015, OAI followed by applying for the “Open AI” trademark, blocking OpenAI’s 2022 application with the PTO.
OpenAI sued OAI and Ravine in 2023, claiming the domain infringes its trademarks and causes consumer confusion. OAI filed counterclaims of trademark infringement, seeking a declaratory judgment that it’s the rightful owner of the disputed mark and that OpenAI’s mark is invalid.
OpenAI had developed an ownership right to its name by November 2022 because it acquired secondary meaning, Rogers said, pointing to extensive news coverage and millions of users. OAI argued the mark hadn’t acquired secondary meaning because OAI released several tools around the same time, but Rogers said evidence “demonstrates that few, if any, people actually used those tools.”
The order also noted much of the “use” evidence Ravine cited comes from witnesses who are exclusively former employees, friends, or investors in his litigation.
Ravine copied the mark because he and his company “drifted into OpenAI’s market segment” by launching an AI image generator and chatbot on the open.ai domain after OpenAI released similar products, the order said.
Since the court ruled OAI’s trademark wasn’t properly registered, the company would have to show “Open AI” was inherently distinctive or acquired secondary meaning for the claims against OpenAI to survive. Though OAI argued the distinctive question should be left to a jury because its expert testified the term doesn’t describe the company’s products, Rogers said the expert “misses the point.” That there are other meanings of the term doesn’t detract from the one meaning that does describe them, she said, adding “an expert’s opinion which ignores the evidence in the case does not create a genuine dispute of material fact.”
OAI also cited no evidence that “Open AI” acquired secondary meaning, so Rogers granted OpenAI summary judgment on the trademark infringement counterclaims.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP represent OpenAI. Open Artificial Intelligence is represented by Sheppard Mullin, Willenken LLP, Harris Litigation PC, Arlenbach Legal Inc., Verso Law Group LLP, and Neal & McDevitt LLC.
The case is OpenAI Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 23-cv-03918, 7/21/25.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story: