IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: OpenAI prevails over California firm claiming prior ownership of ‘Open AI’ mark, (Jul 22, 2025)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

Court orders cancellation of Open Artificial Intelligence’s “Open AI” registration on the Supplemental Register for misrepresentation to the USPTO, and holds that it infringed the OpenAI’s mark.

In the latest installment of the trademark dispute between OpenAI, Inc. (“OpenAI”) and Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. and its founder Guy Ravine (collectively, “Ravine”), the federal district court in Oakland, California has granted summary judgment to OpenAI and (1) ordered cancellation of Ravine’s registration on the Supplemental Register due to misrepresentations made to the USPTO during the application process, and (2) found that Ravine’s use of the “Open AI” mark infringes the “OpenAI” mark, in which OpenAI has a protectable interest due to its substantially exclusive use. The court permanently enjoined Ravine, and those acting with him or at his direction, from using the Open AI mark (OpenAI, Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-03918-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2025)).

OpenAI sued Ravine alleging (1) trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) common law trademark infringement; (3) fraudulent registration, 15 U.S.C. § 1120; (4) cancellation for non bona fide use, 15 U.S.C. § 1119; and (5) cancellation for misrepresenting source, 15 U.S.C. § 1119. On February 24, 2024, the court granted OpenAI’s motion for a preliminary injunction, after finding that OpenAI has the rights of a senior user. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction. Ravine filed counterclaims against OpenAI and two individuals. In the counterclaims, Ravine alleges he started using the disputed mark in 2015 and has done so continuously since that time, prior to OpenAI’s launch of ChatGPT in November 2022. The court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims against it, though it dismissed them against the individuals. OpenAI then moved for summary judgment on its own claims and Ravine’s counterclaims.

Cancellation. The court granted summary judgment to OpenAI on its claims for cancellation and Ravine’s corresponding counterclaim. OpenAI’s claims for cancellation asserted that Ravine procured his “Open AI” mark based on fraud. The court found no genuine disputes of material fact that Ravine made two misrepresentations when applying for the mark in 2015: (1) that Ravine’s product Hub existed in 2015 when the application was filed, and (2) the Hub was used in commerce at that time.

The court cited evidence that Ravine applied for its mark on December 11, 2015, the day OpenAI announced its founding. Ravine submitted the “Open AI” landing page as a specimen, which simply stated “announcement would be made soon.” When the USPTO rejected the application due to the specimen not showing the applied-for mark being used in commerce, Ravine submitted a substitute specimen that was not in use in commerce at the time the application initially was filed, though the substitute filing required Ravine to represent to the USPTO that it was. Further, the Hub specimen included planted posts by a Ravine employee, which gave the appearance that the Hub was being used in commerce, when in fact it was not. There was no genuine dispute of material fact that these submissions falsely represented that the Hub was available for use in 2015 and the specimens showed that actual use as of the application filing date. And since Ravine could not argue in good faith he did not know the content of what he submitted, the court rejected his self-serving assertions that (1) he did not know he violated the law, and (2) attorneys regularly submit false information to the USPTO.

Infringement. The court also granted OpenAI summary judgment on its claims that Ravine’s use of the “Open AI” mark infringes its “OpenAI” mark. There was no dispute that the two marks are likely to, and already have, caused consumer confusion. Therefore, the infringement claims hinged on which party has a protectable ownership interest in a valid mark. The court found OpenAI has such a protectable interest, not Ravine.

Ravine’s counterclaims. The court addressed Ravine’s “Open AI” mark first. Because the court had just held the mark was not properly registered, Ravine had to show his mark is (1) inherently distinctive, or (2) descriptive but has acquired secondary meaning. Ravine could not show either.

The court cited the USPTO’s determination that the “Open AI” mark is “descriptive,” a classification that Ravine did not dispute when electing to register his mark on the Supplemental Register. Proceeding on the Supplemental Register acts as an “admission against interest” that the mark is not distinctive or a protectable trademark, the court noted. The court rejected Ravine’s assertion that classification of his mark should be left to a jury. Ravine proffered a linguist as an expert, who asserted that the word “open” has many meanings, many of which are not descriptive of Ravine’s product. That misses the point, according to the court, because at least one meaning of “open” does describe the product.

Nor did Ravine show that the “Open AI” mark has acquired secondary meaning. He proffered “no evidence” to support secondary meaning, the court pointed out. (Emphasis in original.). Because Ravine did not establish a protectable mark, the court granted OpenAI summary judgment on Ravine’s infringement counterclaims.

OpenAI’s infringement claims. Unlike the “Open AI” mark discussed above, while descriptive, the “OpenAI” mark has acquired secondary meaning, the court held. This makes it a protectable mark that supports infringement claims. Thus, the court granted OpenAI summary judgment on its claims that Ravine infringed its marks.

Though Ravine claimed that he used his mark before OpenAI used its mark, the court found that at the time of Ravine’s initial use, the Hub and other Ravine offerings were “information or message-sharing platforms [that] were never a commercial concern, and were limited to collaboration and communication tools for people interested in talking about AI development.” When in November 2022 Ravine “pivoted” from messaging platforms and started offering an AI image generator (“Boom”), this was a much different product. Importantly, by that time, OpenAI had acquired secondary meaning in its AI products, making it first in that “lane,” according to the court.

The court cited secondary meaning evidence sufficient to support every factor being considered. Evidence of consumer perception supported secondary meaning by November 2022, including that by April 2019, OpenAI’s website averaged more than 1 million visitors per month, which by November 2022 increased to more than 3 million users creating 4 million images per day, and that search engines like Google and BING exclusively associated the term “OpenAI” with OpenAI’s products. Further, OpenAI’s release of ChatGPT on November 15, 2022, was referred to in tech journals as “one of the fastest growing services ever” with over 100 million weekly users.

Similarly, evidence showed OpenAI advertised under the “OpenAI” trademark, including its launching and publicizing several products under that mark, participating and sponsoring leading AI industry conferences, and social media activity. That OpenAI did not engage in traditional media advertising, as Ravine argued, was of no moment, the court held.

Further, by November 2022, OpenAI had used its mark for just under seven years, which exceeds the five-year substantial and continuous use that provides prima facie evidence of secondary meaning. Finally, the court held the evidence showed that OpenAI’s use was sufficiently exclusive, because even if Ravine was releasing tools during that time period, few if any people were using them.

The Case is No. 4:23-cv-03918-YGR.

Judge: Rogers, Y.

Attorneys: Robert Michael Schwartz (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) for OpenAI, Inc. Gregory S. Gilchrist (Verso Law Group LLP) for Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc.

Companies: OpenaAI, Inc.; Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory AINews Trademark TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews GCNNews