IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: Celebrity video platform Cameo obtains TRO against OpenAI, (Dec 1, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

OpenAI enjoined from using the term “cameo” in connection with a feature on its newly revamped Sora application.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted Baron App, Inc. d/b/a Cameo request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against OpenAI who allegedly infringed of Cameo’s federally registered CAMEO® mark in connection with OpenAI’s Sora application. Cameo alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate a likelihood of success on its trademark infringement claim, that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent temporary relief, and that the balance of the hardships and the public interest favor a TRO (Baron App, Inc. d/b/a Cameo v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-09268-EKL (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025)).

Background. Baron App, Inc., doing business as Cameo, runs a digital platform that allows users to purchase and receive personalized video messages from celebrities, athletes, creators, and influencers. Since launching in 2017, Cameo has become a widely recognized online marketplace for celebrity video content and endorsements. The defendants, OpenAI, Inc. and related entities (collectively known as OpenAI) are Delaware entities based in San Francisco, California. They develop artificial intelligence technologies, including ChatGPT, DALL·E, and Sora, a text-to-video generative AI system. On September 30, 2025, OpenAI announced “an updated and invite-only” version of its Sora application, which allows users to create AI-generated videos from a prompt. Unlike past versions, this version of Sora includes a new service that allows users to create a virtual likeness of themselves and ‘open’ their likenesses to other users on the platform, enabling Sora’s growing user base to use them in realistic, personalized AI-generated videos. Celebrities that join Sora are able to “create their virtual likenesses and ‘open’ them to Sora’s users, allowing those users to create personalized videos featuring celebrities.” OpenAI selected the name “Cameo” for this new feature that can create “fake yet highly realistic videos featuring celebrity likenesses.”

Cameo filed a trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition lawsuit in the district court against OpenAI. Cameo then filed an application for a TRO to enjoin OpenAI from using the term “cameo” in connection with a feature on its newly revamped Sora application.

The district court explained that in order for Cameo to succeed, it had to satisfy all four elements of the test articulated in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008), considering (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the presence of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; (3) the balance of equities; and (4) the public interest.

Likelihood of success on the merits. The district court noted that Cameo has a protectable interest in its federally registered CAMEO® trademarks and therefore has a protectible ownership interest in the mark. Further, OpenAI is using an identical, non-stylized version of the CAMEO® mark on, and in connection with, their Sora application.

To demonstrate customer confusion, courts have relied upon the eight factors noted in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats: (1) the strength the mark; (2) proximity of the goods; (3) similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser; (7) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines. The district court noted that, for the standard character CAMEO® mark, Registration No. 6,369,961, the registration itself is evidence of the mark’s distinctiveness. Additionally, Cameo also made a prima facie showing that its mark is commercially strong. The district court found that Cameo is likely to succeed in establishing that OpenAI’s “cameo” feature on the Sora app is “similar in use and function,” at least in part, to Cameo’s service. The district court also noted that that the mark used in connection with its Sora “cameo” feature is visually and phonetically identical to Cameo’s standard character CAMEO® mark. Further, OpenAI is using the identical mark in connection with related goods or services and the mark is being used both in-app and on social media platforms. Thus, the district court concluded that the marks are highly similar and that this factor weighed in Cameo’s favor. In addition, because OpenAI is using an identical mark to generate and refer to related, and at times virtually indistinguishable videos, the general public has no meaningful way of distinguishing between the two product lines or confirming whether OpenAI’s “cameo” feature is in fact in partnership with the original Cameo. Thus, the district court found that a reasonably prudent consumer is likely to be misled under these circumstances. Cameo also provided some evidence of actual confusion. The district court also concluded that the remaining Sleekcraft factors marketing channel convergence, defendants’ intent, and product-line expansion are neutral.

Thus, Cameo established a likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement claim and the burden shifted to OpenAI to show a likelihood that its affirmative defense will succeed. However, the district court found that OpenAI failed to carry the burden of establishing a likelihood of success as to an affirmative fair use defense.

Irreparable harm. OpenAI argued that Cameo cannot demonstrate “an emergency exists here” because “it waited ‘a full month’ after OpenAI’s debut of the Sora App before filing its motion.” The district court did not find unnecessary delay on Cameo’s part because just six days after OpenAI informed Cameo that it would not rename its “cameo” feature, Cameo initiated an action, and two days later, Cameo filed its emergency TRO application. The district court found that OpenAI’s second argument that Cameo faces only economic harm unpersuasive because, harm to reputation and goodwill can constitute irreparable harm. Therefore, the district court found that this Winter factor weighed in favor of Cameo.

Balance of equities. OpenAI argued that the requested injunction would harm its ability to successfully launch its Sora app and other Sora 2 functionality. However, OpenAI’s harm arises from its own likely infringing use of a federally registered mark. Under these circumstances, the district court found that this Winter factor weighed in favor of Cameo.

Public interest. OpenAI’s competing public interest of “not eliminating dictionary meanings” relies on its position that “cameo” is a merely descriptive mark, which the district court has rejected for purposes of the TRO application. Thus, the public interest also weighed in favor of a TRO.

Accordingly, after careful consideration of the Winter factors, Cameo’s application for a TRO was granted.

The Case is No. 5:25-cv-09268-EKL.

Judge: Lee, E.

Attorneys: Jordan Philip Raphael (Byron Raphael LLP) for Baron App, Inc. d/b/a/ Cameo. Sara Louise Pollock (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP) for OpenAI, Inc.

Companies: Baron App, Inc. d/b/a/ Cameo; OpenAI, Inc.

Cases: Trademark CaliforniaNews GCNNews