showcase GPT domains

[Centauri]

Hey,

now that GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) is so hyped,
and news GPT .com sold for over $40k,
chatgpt.com valued at $29 bio. recently,

its maybe time to have a small but dedicated thread for GPT.


Do you own any names?

 

[Backrow]

Just for everyone, who may have missed it on the previous page:

Because I'm a new member I can't post links. But I realized that you can directly find the David Michaels Tweets I referenced about a potential class action by going to entry #613 of this "GPT domains" thread (which is is halfway down the prior page of this thread--page 25--written by silentg) and clicking on the Tweet that silentg linked. The two Tweets that I referenced are in that Tweet thread.

 

[Backrow]

It's debatable whether OpenAI will be able to secure a TM for GPT alone. I've seen big firm analysis come down on both sides. But as one lawyer put it, OpenAI has as much right to TM the stand-alone term GPT as Apple would have to separately TM the stand-alone terms "i" or "phone." Sure, OpenAI can TM ChatGPT and its variants just as Apple can TM iPhone or iPad. But when you separate the terms into their constituent parts, the arguments for TM protection are weak in both cases.

It should be noted that the reason that OpenAI is having BrandShield send out the "please don't use GPT" letters to current GPT domain holders, which are not cease-and-desist letters from a law firm because even OpenAI recognizes that its TM claim to GPT is tenuous, is that the main reason OpenAI's expedited review request was rejected (aside from not including the expedited filing fee--some junior associate is getting fired) is that the USPTO expressly stated that OpenAI had included no evidence of any action taken by OpenAI against purported TM infringers. OpenAI is now trying to generate as much of a paper trail as it can on this point.

One last thing someone else noted as a strike against OpenAI: Even in papers prepared by OpenAI personnel as recently as last fall, GPT was defined and used as a generic industry term. When your own white papers use GPT as a generic industry term it's pretty hard to now argue that it's a TM'd term.

 

[ARCCLOUD]

Casual domain trader. Casual reader of NP. First time poster as I thought this may be of interest.

From the Twitter thread of davidmichaels on 5 May (since I can't post links and just link to it):

"If you are a domain name investor or an OpenAI subscriber, Let me know if you are interested in filing a class action lawsuit against OpenAI and BrandShield."

"Brandshield's letters to users of domains comprising the word GPT have devalued the resale value of GPT domain names. That devaluation represents damages that owners of these domains have sustained. Damages under the Lanham Act and the Sherman Act are also available."

This would be great "IF" and I do mean "IF" we could

1. Prove that our sites could have sold for X if they would have not sent the letters. Maybe showing offers were rescinded?
2. Prove that the letters, and not anything else, "DIRECTLY" affected the domain sales. Again with #1, have proof from a potential buyer that they would have bought our domains but the letters sent by BrandShild called for them to decline.

There are many assumptions to be made and all have to be proven. Trust me, holding these names longer than expected sucks, but I don't see how anyone could win this case unfortunately without proof.

 

[namedr]

It's a gamble at this point, hold for 5 months or whenever the TM decision comes in and 10X all your prices immediately if the TM is rejected. If TM is approved...game over...

 

[matemp]

And bizjournals.com just had an article on May 10th saying, "...the actual phrase GPT, standing for generative pre-trained transformer, is a broad term describing the AI technology. The term was first introduced in 2018 in a research paper published by OpenAI, but has since been used to describe any AI model that meet certain criteria."

 

[Backrow]

This would be great "IF" and I do mean "IF" we could

1. Prove that our sites could have sold for X if they would have not sent the letters. Maybe showing offers were rescinded?
2. Prove that the letters, and not anything else, "DIRECTLY" affected the domain sales. Again with #1, have proof from a potential buyer that they would have bought our domains but the letters sent by BrandShild called for them to decline.

There are many assumptions to be made and all have to be proven. Trust me, holding these names longer than expected sucks, but I don't see how anyone could win this case unfortunately without proof.

Good questions. I only have a few .GPT domains so I hadn't decided whether to contact the lawyer or not. But it would be interesting to know how they plan to quantify the losses.

 

[Backrow]

It's a gamble at this point, hold for 5 months or whenever the TM decision comes in and 10X all your prices immediately if the TM is rejected. If TM is approved...game over...

So true. I'm not an IP lawyer (and I've never slept at a Holiday Inn Express) so I have no insight other than what I read online like everyone else. But I wonder how much the actions of big dogs like Bloomberg (which applied for BloombergGPT trademark) will affect things. If Bloomberg wants to fight OpenAI's claim, they have the deep pockets to do so, which could put a huge dent in OpenAI's claim. But if Bloomberg and OpenAI come to some type of mutually beneficial licensing agreement under which Bloomberg then supports OpenAI's claim, will that sway the USPTO ruling?

 

[Backrow]

Good questions. I only have a few .GPT domains so I hadn't decided whether to contact the lawyer or not. But it would be interesting to know how they plan to quantify the losses.

Sorry, I'm tired. I meant to say I only have a few "XGPT" domains.

 

[Grablink]

casino-gpt.com sold for 3k usd.
chatgptd.com amount not disclosed
gpt.com.ai amount not disclosed
securegpt.com sold for 1.5k usd
gptcloud.cn amount not disclosed
chatgpt247.com sold for 400 usd.
The above sales are not mine.

 

[khurramriaz]

BiddingGPT.com

 

[Arjun Oli]

GPTvine .com
multipleGPT .com
passageGPT .com

 

[ARCCLOUD]

This would be great "IF" and I do mean "IF" we could

1. Prove that our sites could have sold for X if they would have not sent the letters. Maybe showing offers were rescinded?
2. Prove that the letters, and not anything else, "DIRECTLY" affected the domain sales. Again with #1, have proof from a potential buyer that they would have bought our domains but the letters sent by BrandShild called for them to decline.

There are many assumptions to be made and all have to be proven. Trust me, holding these names longer than expected sucks, but I don't see how anyone could win this case unfortunately without proof.

Not sure why this was down voted. I'm guessing the down voters did not read the Trademark Petition decision dated 4/18/2023. The USPTO denied stating the following :

However, your request cannot be construed as an informal petition to make special because it is incomplete. Specifically, the petition is missing the petition fee as required by 37 C.F.R. §2.6 and the appropriate documentary evidence supporting the justification of special action. TMEP §1710. You state that “OpenAI is taking aggressive action against the myriad infringements and counterfeit apps.” (Req. to Make Special.) However, you omitted the required supporting evidence of the action you have taken against the infringer, e.g., a copy of a relevant civil court complaint, cease-and-desist letter. See TMEP §1710. Instead, you have provided a declaration statement and web articles of your product and the alleged infringement. Unfortunately, a declaration and evidence of alleged infringement are insufficient, and objective documentary evidence demonstrating your efforts against the infringement is required.

You can read the entire rejection HERE

Which is why OPENAI started sending out the letters via BrandShield.

Again, OPENAI has to prove the claims they have made. As would be the same for anyone seeking damages. Both require proof.

 

[karmaco]

Not sure why this was down voted. I'm guessing the down voters did not read the Trademark Petition decision dated 4/18/2023. The USPTO denied stating the following :



You can read the entire rejection HERE

Which is why OPENAI started sending out the letters via BrandShield.

Again, OPENAI has to prove the claims they have made. As would be the same for anyone seeking damages. Both require proof.

That means absolutely nothing. It doesn’t mean they were denied. They were just denied a speedy trademark because they didn’t pay a fee. Has zero to do with if they will be granted the mark or not.

 

[ET76]

Because I'm a new member I can't post links. But I realized that you can directly find the David Michaels Tweets I referenced about a potential class action by going to entry #613 of this "GPT domains" thread (which is is halfway down the prior page of this thread--page 25--written by silentg) and clicking on the Tweet that silentg linked. The two Tweets that I referenced are in that Tweet thread.

Is this the tweet?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654257365741436928

 

[ARCCLOUD]

That means absolutely nothing. It doesn’t mean they were denied. They were just denied a speedy trademark because they didn’t pay a fee. Has zero to do with if they will be granted the mark or not.

You are half correct. USPTO cited :

Specifically, the petition is missing the petition fee as required by 37 C.F.R. §2.6 and the appropriate documentary evidence supporting the justification of special action.

Which the documentation is the more important piece and why they started sending out the letters via Brandshield. Also, the majority of the rejection is USPTO advising OPENAI to prove this claim. They are basically starting over. It will be interesting to see this play out. As a owner of GPT domains I do hope it is rejected altogether.

 

[user.app]

GPT-100.com
AIGC.marketing
AIGC.gay
AIGC.directory
AIGC.marketing
AIGC.software

 

[Backrow]

You are half correct. USPTO cited :



Which the documentation is the more important piece and why they started sending out the letters via Brandshield. Also, the majority of the rejection is USPTO advising OPENAI to prove this claim. They are basically starting over. It will be interesting to see this play out. As a owner of GPT domains I do hope it is rejected altogether.

I'm with ARCCLOUD on this. I have never practiced before the USPTO (anyone who has, please chime in) but I've worked with many other agencies in DC. If a company forgot to send in a filing fee it would typically be resolved with a quick phone call from the agency and the company sending the fee. It would be a non-issue. The USPTO rejected OpenAI's expedited request mainly due to lack of evidence showing that OpenAI was actively defending its TM claim.

I presume there were substantive conversations between the USPTO and OpenAI on the subject. Someone with USPTO experience would likely have good insight into what the USPTO told OpenAI about the strength of their claim. Did they say that OpenAI was likely to fail, but feel free to try again with better documentation and we'll review at that point? Or did they say that OpenAI was likely to succeed if they provided evidence of active defense of their claim? Anyone familiar with the process?

 

[Backrow]

@ET76​

Interestingly, at this point I can't even reply to a post that has a link embedded in it. Crazy.

Thanks. Yes, that is the thread. If you click on that tweet you can see the relevant tweets fourth and fifth down on that thread.

 

[karmaco]

You are half correct. USPTO cited :



Which the documentation is the more important piece and why they started sending out the letters via Brandshield. Also, the majority of the rejection is USPTO advising OPENAI to prove this claim. They are basically starting over. It will be interesting to see this play out. As a owner of GPT domains I do hope it is rejected altogether.

The status of their trademark application has not changed. It is still pending and still has a first in use date of 2018. They don’t have to start over.

Its just in line like all others to be approved. Not fast tracked. Stop making false claims when you obviously don’t have the most basic understanding of trademark law.

 

[ARCCLOUD]

The status of their trademark application has not changed. It is still pending and still has a first in use date of 2018. They don’t have to start over.

Its just in line like all others to be approved. Not fast tracked. Stop making false claims when you obviously don’t have the most basic understanding of trademark law.

Can you please share where I made the false claim? Most of what I wrote is directly quoted in the Petition response. If you are referring to my quote "They are basically starting over", I am referring to the trademark process. They were DENIED a speedy trademark assessment which the USPTO gave their reasons. After, OPENAI started sending out via Bransdhield letters.

I asked CHATGPT to decipher my message to make sure I wasn't too far off. CHATGPT advised:

The phrase "basically starting over" likely refers to the idea that OpenAI has to provide more evidence or revise their claim/application in such a way that it's almost like starting from scratch. This might involve compiling additional documentation, reworking their argument or claim, or otherwise going back to the drawing board in order to meet the USPTO's standards or requirements.

Which is exactly what I was going for. My apologies if there was any confusion.

 

[Backrow]

The status of their trademark application has not changed. It is still pending and still has a first in use date of 2018. They don’t have to start over.

Its just in line like all others to be approved. Not fast tracked. Stop making false claims when you obviously don’t have the most basic understanding of trademark law.

Hi @karmaco-

It sounds like you have experience with USPTO trademark submissions. Good to hear. As I noted, I've never worked with the USPTO but have a lot of experience with other DC regulators. (Recognizing, of course, that USPTO's offices are in Old Town Alexandria and not actually in DC.)

What has been your experience when USPTO provides a substantive deficiency notice like they provided to OpenAI and uses that as a basis to deny expedited review?

 

[TopBrandsForSale]

Casual domain trader. Casual reader of NP. First time poster as I thought this may be of interest.

From the Twitter thread of davidmichaels on 5 May (since I can't post links and just link to it):

"If you are a domain name investor or an OpenAI subscriber, Let me know if you are interested in filing a class action lawsuit against OpenAI and BrandShield."

"Brandshield's letters to users of domains comprising the word GPT have devalued the resale value of GPT domain names. That devaluation represents damages that owners of these domains have sustained. Damages under the Lanham Act and the Sherman Act are also available."

Can you please post the link?

 

[BocaVision]

Can you please post the link?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654257365741436928

 

[allkindsofcrazy]

My list… I’ve sold a few and I post my sales on here in real time when they come. I will be putting some up for auction soon. And for those curious doggpt and gptwars currently receive the most hits…


AccountantGPT.com
AddictionGPT.com
AlzheimersGPT.com
AntivirusGPT.com
AstrologyGPT.com
AudibleGPT.com
AwareGPT.com
B2BGPT.com
BettingGPT.com
BFGPT.com
CalorieGPT.com
CalculatorGPT.com
CameraGPT.com
CarinsuranceGPT.com
ChildGPT.com
ConservativeGPT.com
CouponGPT.com
CreditGPT.com
CsrGPT.com
DebtGPT.com
DegreeGPT.com
DeliveryGPT.com
DentistGPT.com
DiagnosisGPT.com
DiagnosticGPT.com
DNAGPT.com
DogGPT.com
DollGPT.com
DonationGPT.com
EnergyGPT.com
FilterGPT.com
FootballGPT.com
FraudGPT.com
FriendGPT.com
GamerGPT.com
GPSGPT.com
GPTdefender.com
GPTfuel.com
GPTgun.com
GPTrepair.com
GPTquote.com
GPTwars.com
HabitGPT.com
HaikuGPT.com
Hallucinationgpt.com
HealthinsuranceGPT.com
HeartGPT.com
HeightGPT.com
HonestGPT.com
HostGPT.com
HostingGPT.com
HybridGPT.com
ISPGPT.com
LaserGPT.com
LicenseGPT.com
LifeinsuranceGPT.com
MaidGPT.com
MarketplaceGPT.com
MonitorGPT.com
NutritionGPT.com
NYCGPT.com
ObamacareGPT.com
OptionsGPT.com
PhysicsGPT.com
PredictionGPT.com
PsychicGPT.com
PythonGPT.com
QuoteGPT.com
RapGPT.com
RealtorGPT.com
RecordGPT.com
RentGPT.com
RepairGPT.com
ReviewGPT.com
SentientGPT.com
SensorGPT.com
SharedGPT.com
ShoesGPT.com
SupplementGPT.com
SymptomGPT.com
TennisGPT.com
TestingGPT.com
TicketsGPT.com
ToysGPT.com
TreatmentGPT.com
TrumpGPT.com
VacationGPT.com
VitalGPT.com
VPNGPT.com
WearGPT.com
WeedGPT.com
WeightGPT.com
YogaGPT.com

 

[Digital Nomad]

not mine