- Impact
- 9,578
The next Meta.
It doesn’t matter what you think they have been granted a trademark first in use date of 2018 on both GPT and ChatGPT. They also have a GPT 3 mark.NickB makes some good points. I'll add:
To be able to register a trademark in the U.S., the applicant has to show that the proposed trademark is in fact "distinctive" of their company. The more generic a term is in its field, whether to begin with (i.e., by not becoming distinctive in the first place...), or over time (i.e., by failing to maintain its distinctiveness), the less likely it is to be registerable. Such "distinctiveness" is notably harder to achieve and/or maintain for terms that are more generic/descriptive rather than truly unique.
In the case of "ChatGPT," OpenAI might have a stronger argument than with simply "GPT" itself.
In the case of "GPT," in the context of software (specifically A.I.), those letters -- particularly in that combination -- are understood to stand for things that refer to a kind of A.I. language model having certain characteristics, even though OpenAI was first to produce a (g)enerative (p)retrained (t)ransformer and they're still the most notable provider of such technologies. Hence, I don't think that particular trademark application should be granted.
Many brands have unveiled their "GPT" site.Creating a term is not the same as tm-ing a term. If you create a term that denotes and objectively existing phenomenon, then by definition it is generic and you can't own it. E.g. Einstein couldn't TM "The Relativity Theory".
The 2018 use-date won't matter unless they can also show that the term is truly "distinctive" to their company, which is required under trademark law for obtaining (and keeping) a trademark registration.It doesn’t matter what you think they have been granted a trademark first in use date of 2018 on both GPT and ChatGPT. They also have a GPT 3 mark.
While there are two other GPT marks live (in other categories) and at least one pending the problem as I see it is the two categories they selected to establish the marks encompass everything these GPT knock offs will try to piggyback off of. The categores matter.
It can get very messy depending on how aggressively they defend their marks.
Interesting to say the least can they be held responsible for things the bot compiled and composed…Apologies that this is a little OT, but it looks like OpenAI might be spending a bit of time in court... LINK I doubt a suit will be filed - either they'll apologise and he'll drop it, or they'll settle - but it opens an interesting can of worms...
Again they have been granted the mark. As mentioned its not about opinions. They cornered the categories of relevance. That being said, I believe they are probably fine with people who are paying customers using a gpt named site. Time will tell.The 2018 use-date won't matter unless they can also show that the term is truly "distinctive" to their company, which is required under trademark law for obtaining (and keeping) a trademark registration.
That "distinctiveness" is harder to achieve or maintain for terms that are inherently generic/descriptive, because at least a significant portion of the term's usage among the public will tend to be broader. It's really getting harder and harder to deny that "GPT" has a broader meaning in the AI field. OpenAI pioneered this kind of A.I. technology, but now others have their own generative pre-trained transformers too...
It'd sorta be like saying that the first company to make a search engine could trademark the term "search engine" even after other companies were making their own search engines...
I predict that OpenAI will be granted their application for "ChatGPT," and maybe even their numbered GPT versions ("GPT-n series"), but not just "GPT" itself.
I don’t feel bad for all the folks that wasted money on “gpt” domains. They did so solely because of someone else’s thoughts and hard work.
Let this be a lesson to all domainers. Be original and stay generic.
I certainly wondered that myself. And if not this one, at some stage I expect there will be some test cases that will begin to answer that question. In a defamation case like this I can certainly understand someone not being too happy about things.Interesting to say the least can they be held responsible for things the bot compiled and composed…
In a case like this, I wonder if it matters that GPT is an acronym that was already being used for other things for years prior?... I already knew GPT to mean "GUID Partition Table" used in hard drives. And of course there are plenty of other acronyms. Naturally, it would fail if anyone else held the TM already (so I'm sure they don't), but surely this would be something that would be taken into account?... Obviously the acronym has hit the mainstream as a result of OpenAI, though I wonder if acronyms are easy to trademark when they can be taken to mean different things to different people?....Again they have been granted the mark. As mentioned its not about opinions. They cornered the categories of relevance. That being said, I believe they are probably fine with people who are paying customers using a gpt named site. Time will tell.
I also disagree about distinctiveness in this case. They are known worldwide in a short time frame. The term ChatGPT and GPT exploded when they released it 4 months ago. Nobody was talking about ChatGPT or GPT except perhaps insiders before the release earlier this year.
Trademarks are only for a specific field of use, so the fact that the acronym was being used in other fields wouldn't really be a factor.In a case like this, I wonder if it matters that GPT is an acronym that was already being used for other things for years prior?... I already knew GPT to mean "GUID Partition Table" used in hard drives...
Many brands have unveiled their "GPT" site.
Including SalesForce, launched EinsteinGPT - Bloomberg, BloombergGPT, etc
No they didn’tIt seems Bloomberg got their BloombergGPT trademark approved. Any many other companies registering keyword+GPT or GPT + keyword and they all got approved and are live.
Source: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search
Show attachment 236551
Show attachment 236552
true, they didn't, it is still pending, I have mistaken the "live" for approved.No they didn’t