OpenAI Can't Own 'OPENAI' in the EU: What the Class 9 and 42 Ruling Means for AI Brand Owners

The world's most recognisable AI company can't trade mark its own name

Fame, it turns out, is not the same as distinctiveness. On 15 July 2026, the General Court of the European Union handed down its judgment in Case T-555/25, OpenAI, Inc. v EUIPO, confirming a partial refusal to register the EU word mark OPENAI for goods and services in Classes 9, 42 and 45. The ruling is, as legal analyst NicFab noted, the first time EU judicature, not merely the Office at administrative stage, has directly engaged with the registrability of a sign built around the abbreviation "AI".

The mechanics are worth understanding, even if the legal details are for your trade mark counsel. OpenAI filed its application in June 2023, covering software, cloud-computing services, development services, and identity verification. An examiner partially refused it in December 2024. The EUIPO's Fifth Board of Appeal dismissed OpenAI's administrative appeal in June 2025. Judges at the General Court then assessed the mark's inherent qualities and upheld the refusal.

The core finding: for at least a non-negligible proportion of the English-speaking public, the term OPENAI immediately conveys that goods and services are provided using, or connected with, openly accessible artificial intelligence. OpenAI had argued that "open" carries multiple possible meanings and that "OPENAI" is a coined term without a fixed meaning. The Court was unconvinced.

Classes 9 and 42: the heartland of AI brand risk

The affected classes matter enormously. Class 9 covers software and downloadable applications; Class 42 covers software as a service (SaaS), platform services, AI research, and, critically since 1 January 2026, "artificial intelligence as a service (AIaaS)," a term now explicitly listed under the 13th edition of the WIPO Nice Classification. Class 45 covers identity-verification and legal services. These three classes are precisely where most AI companies concentrate their portfolios.

The EUIPO's own 2026 Guidelines, which entered into force on 1 July 2026, have already tightened the landscape: businesses can no longer rely on broad or vague wording when protecting brands in the EU, and virtual goods must be specified with clarity and precision. The OpenAI ruling lands squarely within that stricter environment.

There is a narrow escape route. The Court left a separate acquired-distinctiveness claim open for later review. OpenAI can use consumer-recognition evidence, drawing on the hundreds of millions of people who associate the name with one company, to argue that OPENAI has become distinctive through use. That process requires fresh evidence, takes time, and is not guaranteed. In the meantime, the word mark provides no protection.

OpenAI's logo, the figurative mark including the word, is already registered. A word mark protects the words themselves, irrespective of typeface or design. Losing the word mark means competitors could, in principle, use the phrase "open AI" descriptively in their own EU marketing without automatic recourse to infringement proceedings.

GPT marks cancelled; a pattern is forming

This case does not stand alone. In four decisions dated 17 October 2025, the EUIPO's Cancellation Division declared the already-registered word marks GPT, GPT-3 and GPT-4 wholly invalid. The signal from the EU's IP system is consistent: generic abbreviations for artificial intelligence technology belong to the public, not to any single company.

For brand owners outside the OpenAI orbit, this creates both risk and opportunity. The risk: if your company name or product name is built on a descriptive AI phrase, think anything ending in "AI", "GPT", ".ai", or "Gen", your word mark application faces a credible distinctiveness challenge at the EUIPO and, increasingly, at the UKIPO as well. The UKIPO is simultaneously preparing an AI-powered overhaul of its own search and filing platform, with a discovery phase expected to begin in September 2026, specifically to address growing volumes of non-traditional and technology-sector filings.

The opportunity: a competitor sitting on a descriptive AI mark may now be more vulnerable to cancellation proceedings than previously assumed.

The filing gap that should alarm legal sector firms

Cross this against domestic filing behaviour and the picture sharpens. AI Business Dispatch analysis of Companies House and IPO data (as of July 2026) found 150 new SIC 69.10 companies, legal activities businesses, registered in 2026-Q3: a drop of 78.7% versus the prior period. UK Class 25 trademark filings fell to 1,344 in the same quarter, down 74.7%. Most strikingly, 99.8% of active SIC 69.10 companies hold no Class 25 trade mark at all.

Class 25 covers clothing, footwear and headgear, not software. But the pattern matters. Legal-sector firms launching AI-branded services and merchandise routinely overlook the requirement for brand protection to span both goods and services classes. A firm that secures Class 42 for its AI legal tool but neglects Class 25 for branded merchandise leaves a gap that a well-resourced imitator can exploit.

Clarivate's 2026 Trademark Filing Trends Report reinforces the structural issue: despite rapid commercial influence, most major AI companies have not featured among the highest trademark filers, suggesting brand formalisation in the sector is still emerging. The OpenAI ruling is a sharp reminder of what happens when that formalisation is delayed or incomplete.

What brand owners should do this week

The single practical action: audit any trade mark application, pending or planned, whose core identifier contains "AI", "open", "GPT" or any other term that could be read as describing the underlying technology. For EU filings, assess whether an acquired distinctiveness argument based on use evidence is available. For UK filings, note that the UKIPO's September 2026 digital overhaul may alter examination practice for technology-sector marks.

Run a class-by-class clearance check across Classes 9, 42 and 45 before filing, and do not assume that fame equals registrability. The General Court has just confirmed those are two different things. Speak to a qualified trade mark attorney; nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. For portfolio-level filing data, TrademarkDashboard provides daily-updated UK IPO records across all Nice classes.