Refusal to register the OPENAI trade mark

In its judgment of 15 July 2026 in Case T-555/25, OpenAI v EUIPO, the General Court of the European Union (the “General Court”) dismissed the action brought by OpenAI, Inc. (“OpenAI”) against a decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”).

What Was the Dispute About?

OpenAI applied to register the word sign OPENAI as an EU trade mark for goods and services in Classes 9, 38, 42 and 45 of the Nice Classification. These classes cover, among other things, software, computer programs, databases, software development, cloud-based and technological services, and identity verification services for individuals and businesses. EUIPO partially refused the application on the grounds that the sign was descriptive and lacked distinctive character, the EUIPO Board of Appeal dismissed the company’s appeal, following which OpenAI brought an action before the General Court.

When Is a Sign Descriptive?

The General Court focused primarily on Article 7(1)(c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation. Under that provision, signs which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, intended purpose or another characteristic of the relevant goods or services may not be registered.

Whether a sign is descriptive must be assessed

(i)            in relation to the specific goods and services for which registration is sought; and

(ii)           by reference to how the relevant public understands the sign.

In this case, the relevant public consisted of English-speaking consumers and professionals in the European Union.

There must be a sufficiently direct and specific connection between the sign and the goods or services concerned so that the relevant public perceives the sign, without further reflection, as a description of the goods, services, or their characteristics.

How Does the Public Understand “Open” and “AI”?

The General Court confirmed that the relevant public would readily identify the elements “open” and “AI” within the sign OPENAI, even though they are not separated by a space or hyphen.

The abbreviation “AI” is widely understood to refer to artificial intelligence. Although the English word “open” may have several meanings, when used in connection with information technology it may refer to something that is freely available, accessible or unrestricted.

Registration may be refused where at least one possible meaning of a sign describes a characteristic of the goods or services concerned.

Is OPENAI an Original Neologism?

OpenAI argued that its sign formed an original whole rather than a simple combination of two expressions. The General Court rejected that argument.

Although consumers generally perceive a trade mark as a whole, they may break down a word sign into elements that have a specific meaning or resemble familiar words. The elements “open” and “AI” are readily recognisable, and their combination follows ordinary rules of English grammar.

The sign OPENAI therefore does not create an impression sufficiently removed from that produced by the mere combination of its constituent elements.

The Relationship with the Goods and Services Concerned

OpenAI further argued that the goods and services covered by the application could serve different purposes and that their primary purpose did not necessarily involve the provision of accessible artificial intelligence, therefore, the sign OPENAI cannot be descriptive in relation to all of these goods and services.

The General Court nevertheless concluded that all the goods and services concerned could be based on accessible artificial intelligence, driven by it or operated through software incorporating AI functionality. Accessible artificial intelligence did not have to be their sole or primary purpose. It was sufficient that at least one possible use of the goods or services corresponded to the meaning conveyed by the sign.

What Is the Relevance of the Sign’s Reputation?

OpenAI also relied on the recognition of its sign. However, the actual use of a trade mark is not decisive when assessing whether the sign is inherently descriptive.

Recognition acquired through use may nevertheless be relevant when determining whether the sign has acquired distinctive character. EUIPO is to assess this alternative argument put forward by OpenAI in subsequent proceedings. The judgment therefore does not mean that the OPENAI sign could not be registered under any circumstances.

What Does the Judgment Mean for Technology Companies?

The judgment confirms that signs created by combining commonly used technological terms face an increased risk of refusal. Where the public immediately understands the sign as providing information about the nature, function or intended purpose of a product, EUIPO may refuse its registration.

When selecting a name for a technology product, businesses should therefore assess from the outset whether the proposed trade mark contains a sufficiently distinctive and individual element. Merely combining words without a space, achieving commercial success or obtaining registration in other jurisdictions may not be sufficient to overcome an objection based on descriptiveness.