Znaki Towarowe Technologie Eng

OpenAI wants to protect key trademarks of its brand – but is it too late

13 September 2023 | Knowledge, News, The Right Focus

On the surface, it would appear that the market success enjoyed by OpenAI OpCo, LLC, the makers of ChatGPT, depends at least partly on the rights to the crucial word marks ChatGPT and GPT-4. Nothing could be further from the truth. It turns out that the AI solutions giant has still not obtained protection for these trademarks in its home market.

Late registration of the ChatGPT trademark

Despite the fact that ChatGPT 4.0 has been a well-known AI tool for almost a year now, OpenAI OpCo, LLC still has no word mark protection in the US for its flagship product.

The first application for the ChatGPT trademark was filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in December 2022. This is surprising as the first version of ChatGPT made available to users of GPT-3.5 was released several weeks earlier, in November 2022.

The next application was filed only a few days before the official release of GPT-4, a new version of ChatGPT (March 2023). However, this action was also long overdue, as the name and functionality of the new product had been widely known for several months.

ChatGPT – why applications are so important

Trademark protection is obtained upon registration and is effective from the date the application is filed. Thus, if a trademark owner who uses a mark to designate goods and/or services unnecessarily delays filing an application, or does so after the product has been launched, they may be acting to their own detriment.

Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine that their competitors will be the ones to file product marks based on or referring to the names used by the owner.

This seems to be happening in the AI industry. Recently, Elon Musk announced that he is working on an alternative to ChatGPT called TruthGPT. There are also solutions on the market such as MedicalGPT and DirtyGPT.

OpenAI’s situation is complicated by the fact that others may hypothetically block registrations containing the word element ‘GPT’ by claiming that it is commonly used to mark artificial intelligence goods and services.

OpenAI has not obtained protection at the USPTO for the ChatGPT, GPT or GPT-4 marks, and all applications are pending at the Office. A prolonged period of non-protection for word marks may therefore have further negative consequences. Both in the short and long term.

Has OpenAI learned its lesson

When analysing the OpenAI case and looking for the causes of errors in building and managing the trademark portfolio, it can be concluded that the developers of the application may simply have been surprised by the scale of their success.

However, it appears that lessons have been learned in this area. At the end of July, with the announcement of the release of the latest version of ChatGPT, i.e. GPT-5, in the autumn of 2023, an application was filed to obtain protection rights for such a word mark.

Best to learn from others’ mistakes

Can companies with much smaller operations learn from OpenAI’s mistakes as they build their own brands? Of course they can!

They should remember to apply as early as possible for trademark protection for the marks they intend to use to identify their goods or services.

It is also important to check whether a mark can indeed be protected or whether it infringes the rights of others before registering it.

This last point is particularly important, as authorities analyse whether the mark applied for infringes the rights of those previously registered.

Do you want to know how to effectively protect your brand before it enters the market? Feel free to contact us.

Tomasz Szambelan

Latest Knowledge

Payment Services Regulation (PSR) – between consumer protection and due diligence

The draft Payment Services Regulation (PSR) is one of the most significant elements of the reform of the EU legal framework for payment services. Its principal aim is to enhance the security of cashless transactions and to reduce the scale of financial fraud, in particular that arising from the growth of digital channels. At the same time, the new rules are intended to introduce a liability model that will not result in risk being transferred entirely to financial institutions, whilst retaining an important role for independent due diligence on the part of the user.

Energy deregulation – key changes for businesses and energy consumers

The President has now signed the Energy Deregulation Act (UDER92). The new provisions cover both the relationships between energy undertakings and consumers, and matters relating to investment, district heating, and the administrative obligations of energy market participants. The Act introduces changes in the areas of billing, communication with consumers, grid connection, and the operations of undertakings in the energy and district heating sectors. We set out the key points to note.

Banking sector overview | Banking today and tomorrow | July 2026

Under the draft legislation, banks will be required to offer existing borrowers a switch from WIBOR-based to POLSTR-based interest rates, a mechanism intended to speed up the voluntary transition of financial instruments to the new benchmark. The banking sector has responded positively to the proposal, according to Tadeusz Białek, President of the Polish Bank Association.

“Withdraw from contract here” – what next for the new button in online shops, on trading platforms and in mobile apps?

From 19 June, national legislation was to require businesses in the European Union entering into distance contracts with consumers via an online interface to provide consumers with the option to withdraw from the contract via a dedicated function/button. However, due to Poland’s delay in transposing Directive 2023/2673, which requires the use of such a button, this obligation has been postponed in our country. We look at what remote contract withdrawal entails and which transactions the new feature will apply to.

Municipal master plans – new deadline, same old challenges

On 11 June 2026, the President signed into law a bill extending the deadline for municipalities to adopt their master plans (plany ogólne). The key deadline for adopting master plans was moved from 30 June to 31 August 2026. We examine the reasons behind this change and consider what the absence of a master plan might mean for potential investors and their future projects.

Record fines and the upcoming 21st sanctions package – what should businesses expect?

The past year has brought a series of enforcement actions that clearly signal a tightening approach by the Polish customs and revenue authorities towards breaches of the sanctions regime. Importantly, businesses should already be preparing for further changes, as the European Union has announced its 21st sanctions package and updated the list of designated persons and entities. We examine the key developments and offer guidance on how to minimise the risk of non-compliance.

A sea change in the rules governing board members’ liability for a company’s tax arrears

The bill amending the General Tax Code (No. UC138) fundamentally overhauls the rules governing the tax liability of third parties for capital companies’ tax arrears.  It comes in response to recent CJEU judgments, the Ombudsman’s February statement and the post-audit report of the Supreme Chamber of Audit (NIK) of December 2025. We examine what’s changing, who will be affected by the new rules and what steps are worth taking right now.

Partner in name, but only if male: the linguistic trap in Polish corporate law

One of the structures available under Polish law is the ‘spółka partnerska’ (professional partnership), modelled on the Anglo-Saxon Limited Liability Partnership. As defined in the Polish Commercial Companies Code, this is a vehicle for individuals practising liberal professions, such as doctors, architects and accountants. And yet, the provisions governing professional partnerships make no mention of their applicability to women. We therefore examine whether there is no room for female partners, feminine-gendered forms, or simply linguistic empathy.

Can you sue over words aimed at an entire community?

A damaging public statement does not necessarily refer to a specific individual. Sometimes, the author attributes negative characteristics to a whole group of people, portrays them as a threat or uses language that could be seen as demeaning. Statements of this kind frequently concern LGBTQ+ people. This raises the question: can a member of the targeted community bring a lawsuit seeking compensation or an apology, even if they were not named directly? We decided to look into this.

Contact us:

Tomasz Szambelan

Tomasz Szambelan

Advocate / Counsel / Intellectual and Industrial Property Law

+48 608 593 042

t.szambelan@kochanski.pl