4 ms·
> The EUIPO found that the word "open" would be understood by the relevant public as meaning freely accessible, while the combination with "AI" (artificial inte
by jameson 3mo ago
> The EUIPO found that the word "open" would be understood by the relevant public as meaning freely accessible, while the combination with "AI" (artificial intelligence) would be interpreted as referring to products based on openly accessible artificial intelligence.
> for certain software and information technology goods and services, the term is purely descriptive and therefore lacks the distinctiveness required for trademark protection
edit: add the latter statement
- yorwba 3mo agoMore pertinently "the term is purely descriptive and therefore lacks the distinctiveness required for trademark protection." I.e. the problem isn't that OpenAI's products don't match their description, but that trademarking it would unduly prevent others from describing their openly accessible artificial intelligence as "open AI."
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- Ekaros 3mo agoI think there is most likely set of adjectives that would fall under same reasoning. GreenAI or FreeAI likely would be also be refused. On other hand RedAI or BlueAI might very well pass. It is not entirely unreasonable decision if you consider if the terms would be used in regular conversations on AI.
- DaiPlusPlus 3mo ago> RedAI I suppose that could be a generic term for any AI used as an mock adversarial or sparring-partner role, like how "red team" is today. > BlueAI Would refer to an LLM/agent rained to simulate clinical depression... ...at which point I would ask why we're creating things that will know only pain and suffering? Are we the baddies now?
- a012 3mo agoUnicornAI. You’re welcome
- echoangle 3mo agoNot sure that’s an adjective
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- dylan604 3mo agoIf you use it like unicorn poop, then it is describing the kind of poop just like Open/Green/Free in previous examples would be describing AI
- echoangle 3mo agoThat doesn’t mean it’s an adjective though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct
- munk-a 3mo agoAn excellent example of something that clearly wouldn't be distinctive since all AI related endeavors bill themselves as unicorns.
- inigyou 3mo agoIt doesn't actually mean anything though, so I think it would pass as a trademark. Apple Computer is allowed because Apple doesn't mean anything in relation to computers. You might have trouble with Mouse Computer unless you were the company that invented or popularized the mouse.
- inigyou 3mo agoMMAcevedo does respond to red motivation, though poorly.
- jasode 3mo ago>More pertinently "the term is purely descriptive and therefore lacks the distinctiveness required for trademark protection." As I wrote in my other comment, "open systems" also can be purely descriptive and yet Open Systems seems to be a valid trademark in Europe. I'm not defending OpenAI. I'm just confused that the rules for allowing trademarks for ordinary words and phrases don't look consistent at the surface level.
- yorwba 3mo agoFrom the background information provided in the court decision: "as regards the earlier similar registrations relied on by the applicant, the Board of Appeal recalled that those registrations did not represent current practice and case-law and that the legality of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal must be assessed solely on the basis of Regulation 2017/1001 and not on the basis of a previous administrative practice."
- pfortuny 3mo agoCourts exist, among other things, to specify the rules in ambiguous cases. Rules will be ambiguous always.
- rdtsc 3mo ago> I'm just confused that the rules for allowing trademarks for ordinary words and phrases don't look consistent at the surface level Precedence in court decisions is weighted more in some places than others. US courts, from my pedestrian observation, are all into "well there is a precedent so we'll follow that". But other countries don't necessarily do that, their courts might be more eager to disregard it and do whatever they feel is appropriate in that situation. You can see it in how OpenAI reacted "The company also cited comparable trademark registrations previously granted by the EUIPO and registrations in more than 30 other countries, including the United Kingdom and Singapore" (well precedents say this and that...)
- munk-a 3mo agoEven the US does change policies every once in a while. This is a case where Open Systems was last challenged under the old rule set when it was acceptably descriptive. Since that point standards have changed and, presumably, Open Systems might now be exposed to a similar mark challenge.
- mycall 3mo agoWhile the industry is currently using "open weights" or "open models", the use of open AI could equally be used now.
- Hamuko 3mo agoAnd to think that this could have all been avoided if they'd just renamed themselves something more appropriate after they decided to focus fully on developing closed models for profit.
- pbhjpbhj 3mo agoShowMeTheMonAI ?
- dmix 3mo agoThis seems pretty silly.
- paulddraper 3mo agoExtremely silly. Take, for example, OpenText. [1] Nothing about it is free, or open source code, or in any other sense publicly accessible. [2] I don't know if they operate in the EU, but I presume any application for a trademark would be rejected. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenText https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenText [2] It's "Open" as it turns paper documents into more easily accessible digital formats. But not public in any way.
- dmix 3mo agoThe purpose of the company is also rarely defined by it's name. Brands aren't inherently descriptive and it's normal for companies to evolve over time.
- paulddraper 3mo agoYou mean Shell doesn't sell sea shells? [1] [1] Actually it originally did in 1833. It doesn't today. But that’s still the name.