IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK NEWS: Cameo sues OpenAI over use of ‘CAMEO’ mark in AI video generator Sora, (Oct 31, 2025)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Baron App, Inc., doing business as Cameo, filed a trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against OpenAI, Inc. and related entities. The complaint alleges that OpenAI's decision to use the name "Cameo" for a new generative AI video feature within its Sora app unlawfully appropriates Cameo's registered CAMEO® mark and misleads consumers into believing that OpenAI's service is associated with or endorsed by the celebrity video platform. Cameo seeks an injunction barring OpenAI from using the mark, along with damages, attorneys' fees, and an accounting of profits (Baron App, Inc. d/b/a Cameo v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09268 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 28, 2025)).

Background. The Cameo, Baron App, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, operates under the trade name Cameo. The company 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, collectively known as OpenAI, Inc., 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.

Cameo asserted exclusive rights in four federal trademark registrations protecting the word CAMEO® across digital entertainment and software services: (1) U.S. Reg. No. 6,113,018 for downloadable software used to create and share personalized videos; (2) U.S. Reg. No. 6,369,961 for entertainment services via a website and mobile app; (3) U.S. Reg. No. 6,026,358 and (4) No. 6,026,359 for online marketplace services featuring celebrity-generated video messages.

Cameo contended that three of these registrations have attained incontestable status under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Cameo alleged that through extensive promotion, use by thousands of celebrities, and global media coverage, its mark has become famous and distinctive under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

Contentions. The complaint stated that on September 30, 2025, OpenAI announced a new Sora feature branded as “Cameo,” which allows users to generate AI-based likenesses of celebrities and other personalities appearing in short video clips. OpenAI’s marketing materials encouraged users to “make a Cameo,” and promoted participation by public figures such as Jake Paul and Mark Cuban.

Cameo alleged that this feature directly competed with its platform by enabling users to obtain virtualized, AI-generated celebrity appearances rather than authentic human performances. The complaint maintained that OpenAI’s use of the identical “Cameo” name in connection with similar video services created a strong likelihood of confusion and diluted the value of its famous mark.

Cameo further claimed that OpenAI's actions had already caused actual confusion in the marketplace. Social media users reportedly contacted Cameo's official accounts because they mistakenly believed that the company had partnered with OpenAI or launched an AI version of its service. According to the complaint, Cameo's customer service department also received inquiries about AI-generated videos produced through Sora.

The Cameo asserted that OpenAI adopted the name “Cameo” with full knowledge of its preexisting registrations and substantial goodwill. Cameo alleged that OpenAI acted wilfully and in bad faith by continuing to market the “Cameo” feature despite receiving notice of infringement and demands to cease use. The company described OpenAI’s adoption of the mark as a calculated attempt to trade on its reputation for authenticity and celebrity engagement.

Federal trademark infringement. In its first claim, Cameo alleged trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). The company asserted that OpenAI’s use of the identical word mark “Cameo” for AI video products is likely to cause consumer confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the goods. The complaint emphasized that the marks are identical in spelling and pronunciation, the services overlap in function, and both companies target similar users—fans seeking celebrity video appearances or personalized content.

Cameo maintained that OpenAI’s unauthorized use of its mark damaged its goodwill and reputation. It sought an injunction prohibiting OpenAI’s further use, an accounting of profits derived from the infringement, and treble damages under Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

False designation of origin and unfair competition. In its second claim, Cameo invoked Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), alleging that OpenAI’s actions constituted false designation of origin, false endorsement, and unfair competition. The company claimed that OpenAI’s use of “Cameo” falsely suggested an affiliation or sponsorship relationship, misleading consumers into believing that Cameo had authorized or collaborated with OpenAI.

Cameo contended that OpenAI’s marketing—featuring influencers and celebrities using the “Cameo” brand—reinforced the misperception that the companies were linked. The complaint alleged that this confusion undermined Cameo’s business model based on authentic human performances, while diverting consumer attention to AI-generated content bearing its name.

Dilution. Cameo’s third claim alleged dilution by blurring and tarnishment under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act. The complaint asserted that the CAMEO® mark had achieved “fame” within the meaning of the statute and that OpenAI’s identical use of the mark in the technology and entertainment sectors blurred the mark’s distinctiveness. Cameo argued that the association of its brand with AI-generated or “synthetic” video performances diminished its uniqueness and caused reputational harm.

The complaint also alleged tarnishment, asserting that linking the CAMEO® brand with artificial deepfake-like videos and unauthorized celebrity likenesses degraded its reputation for genuine, creator-driven content. Cameo claimed that OpenAI’s conduct was intentional and in reckless disregard of its statutory rights, entitling it to enhanced damages and attorney fees.

Common law claims. Further, Cameo supplemented its federal claims with state-law causes of action under California’s anti-dilution statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14247, and the state’s Unfair Competition Law, § 17200, et seq. It also alleged common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. These claims mirrored the federal counts but rested on California’s consumer protection framework, which prohibits unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices.

Cameo argued that OpenAI’s actions threatened to erode the economic and reputational value of its mark, divert consumers, and create a false perception of partnership or technological evolution sanctioned by Cameo. The company claimed that it would suffer irreparable harm absent judicial intervention, including the loss of control over its brand identity in the emerging field of AI-driven media.

Relief requested. Cameo requested preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining OpenAI and its affiliates from using the term "Cameo" or any confusingly similar mark in connection with any product or service. It sought actual and statutory damages, disgorgement of OpenAI's profits, treble damages under the Lanham Act, punitive damages under California law, and costs, including attorneys' fees and pre-judgment interest.

The complaint also asked the court to declare that OpenAI’s infringement was willful and that this case qualifies as “exceptional” under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), justifying fee shifting. Cameo further requested corrective advertising and an order requiring OpenAI to transfer any domain names, social media handles, or promotional materials incorporating the disputed mark.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-09268-CRB.

Judge: Breyer, C.

Attorneys: Jordan Philip Raphael and Tim Byron (Byron Raphael LLP) for Baron App, Inc. d/b/a Cameo.

Companies: Baron App, Inc. d/b/a Cameo; OpenAI, Inc.; OpenAI Global, LLC; OpenAI, L.L.C.; OpenAI Opco, LLC; OpenAI GP, L.L.C.

MainStory: TopStory AINews TechnologyInternet Trademark CaliforniaNews GCNNews