General Court confirms: "OPENAI" mark is descriptive — registration refused for software and AI services
General Court, judgment of 15 July 2026 – T-555/25 – OPENAI
- The General Court confirms the partial refusal of the EU word mark "OPENAI" — the sign is descriptive for software, cloud computing, and AI services (Art. 7(1)(c) EUTMR).
- The English-speaking public understands "OPENAI" immediately as "freely accessible artificial intelligence" — not a fanciful term but a mere combination of descriptive elements.
- Neither brand fame nor registrations in over 30 third countries help: the EU trade mark system is autonomous; fame counts only for acquired distinctiveness (Art. 7(3) EUTMR).
The General Court of the European Union has confirmed the partial refusal of the EU trade mark application "OPENAI". The sign is descriptive for software, cloud computing, and AI services and therefore not registrable as an EU trade mark. The decision has immediate relevance for AI companies that combine common English terms in brand names.
The case
OpenAI, Inc. filed the word mark "OPENAI" as an EU trade mark with EUIPO on 15 June 2023 — including for software, development tools, and cloud services (classes 9, 42, 45). The examiner partially refused the application on 5 December 2024; the Board of Appeal confirmed this on 10 June 2025 (R 190/2025-5). OpenAI appealed to the General Court.
The decision
"Open" + "AI" = descriptive
The court found that the relevant English-speaking public immediately recognises the components "open" and "AI" in the sign — even without a space. In the context of IT products, "open" is understood as "freely accessible" or "unrestricted"; "AI" is the widely known abbreviation for "artificial intelligence". The combination follows English grammar (adjective before noun) and contains no syntactically unusual element.
Not a fanciful term
OpenAI argued the sign was a meaningless neologism. The court rejected this: the absence of a space does not create a creative character. It is also irrelevant that "open AI" is not in the dictionary — a descriptive mark need not be in everyday language (paras 38, 39).
Homogeneous goods — overall reasoning permitted
All claimed goods and services — from software and cloud computing to identity verification — could be based on freely accessible AI; the Board of Appeal was therefore entitled to use overall reasoning (paras 48, 49).
Fame and third-country registrations irrelevant
The court rejected the fame argument: Art. 7(1)(c) EUTMR concerns only the intrinsic qualities of a sign; actual use can be considered only under acquired distinctiveness (Art. 7(3) EUTMR) (para. 60). Registrations in over 30 third countries do not bind EUIPO — the EU trade mark system is autonomous (para. 69).
What happens next?
The Board of Appeal has announced that after the judgment becomes final, proceedings on acquired distinctiveness (Art. 7(3) EUTMR) will continue. OpenAI may still secure registration by proving distinctiveness acquired through use — promising given the mark's worldwide fame.
Practical takeaway
The decision confirms the General Court's strict line on descriptive signs in technology. Anyone combining common terms such as "open", "smart", "digital", or "AI" in brand names should expect refusal — even with significant market fame. AI companies should early assess whether applications are inherently distinctive or prepare evidence of acquired distinctiveness.