When the Name IS the Product: The EUIPO's OpenAI Word-Mark Rejection and What It Signals for AI Brand Strategy

Class 9 and the Descriptiveness Trap

There is a familiar paradox at the heart of AI branding. The names that best communicate what a product does are often the names that trademark law refuses to protect. On 15 July 2026, the General Court of the European Union made that paradox concrete, ruling in OpenAI v EUIPO (Case T-555/25) that the word mark OPENAI cannot be registered as an EU trade mark for the goods and services the company actually sells.

The application, filed in June 2023, covered Nice Classes 9, 38, 42, and 45: software, telecommunications services, cloud-computing and development services, and identity verification. Those are precisely the classes where AI brands most urgently need protection, and precisely where the refusal bit hardest.

What the Court Found

The EUIPO had already partially refused the application, concluding that for a non-negligible proportion of the English-speaking public the term immediately conveyed that the goods and services were provided using openly accessible artificial intelligence. The Fifth Board of Appeal upheld that refusal in June 2025. The General Court then dismissed OpenAI's action in its entirety, ordering the company to pay costs.

The reasoning was brisk. The Court found that the relevant public perceives OPENAI as a combination of the words 'open' and 'AI', understanding it to refer to artificial intelligence that is open or accessible. Describing a characteristic or quality of the goods is not the same as indicating their commercial origin. A mark that only does the former fails the distinctiveness test under Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation.

OpenAI had argued, reasonably enough, that the EUIPO had accepted comparable marks in the past. The Court rejected that line of reasoning: the EU trade mark system must be applied independently of national or third-country registration practices, and case-by-case examination is required regardless of prior decisions from lower-level EUIPO bodies.

A Stricter Trend, Not an Isolated Outcome

KPW Law described the ruling as confirming 'an increasingly strict trend regarding trademarks linked to emerging technologies'. Every AI company whose brand name incorporates the word 'AI', 'Open', 'Neural', 'Deep', 'Gen', or any other term that directly describes the underlying technology faces a similar exposure.

The finding from Clarivate's Trademark Filing Trends Report 2026 sharpens the point. Despite their rapid commercial influence, most major AI companies did not feature among the highest trademark filers at the UKIPO or EUIPO, suggesting brand formalisation in the sector is still emerging. If the companies with the biggest AI brands are not yet doing the filing groundwork, many are operating with thinner protection than they realise.

The Class 9 Filing Dip

The timing is uncomfortable. According to AI Business Dispatch analysis of IPO (TMD) data as of September 2026, UK Class 9 trademark filings reached 9,111 in Q3 2026, a fall of 3.7% on the prior period. Class 9 covers software, electronic apparatus, and data-processing equipment: the same goods at the centre of the EUIPO refusal. A declining volume of filings in a class where descriptiveness challenges are intensifying means fewer registered rights standing between brand owners and imitators.

The Acquired Distinctiveness Route Is Not Closed

There is a wrinkle that matters for brand owners watching this case. The EUIPO left open a separate pathway: acquired distinctiveness through use. The General Court did not close that door. OpenAI can still submit evidence that consumers in the EU associate the word OPENAI with a single commercial origin, despite its descriptive meaning. That assessment was set aside pending the judgment becoming final.

The word mark is not lost forever. But 'recognised by hundreds of millions of people' turns out not to be the same thing as 'inherently distinctive'. The evidence required for acquired distinctiveness is substantial: survey data, market share figures, volume of use, geographic reach. It is an expensive and uncertain route.

One further point: OpenAI's figurative mark, incorporating the word within a logo design, is already registered. That protection survives. The refusal was targeted specifically at the word sign in isolation.

Meanwhile, the UKIPO Is Preparing Its Own AI Reckoning

Back in the UK, the UKIPO announced earlier this year that it would begin, from September 2026, an overhaul of trademark search services to incorporate new AI tools, including AI-assisted examination of non-traditional marks such as sounds and gestures. The office acknowledged that the difficulty in searching for these registrations means it can struggle to ensure they are adequately protected. That modernisation programme sits alongside the 25% average fee increase that came into force on 1 April 2026, the first such rise for trade marks since 1998.

Filings are slightly down, costs are up, examination is getting stricter on descriptive AI marks, and the register is becoming harder to search without new tools. The environment for AI brand protection is tightening from every direction.

What Brand Owners Should Do This Week

Audit your Class 9, 38, 42, and 45 filings and ask, honestly, whether your brand name describes what your product does. If it does, a word mark alone may not hold up on either side of the Channel. Check whether a figurative mark combining word and logo is already in place, and if not, file one now before costs rise further. If you are relying on acquired distinctiveness, begin assembling the evidence today: consumer surveys, market data, and documented use across EU territories. Speak to a qualified trade mark attorney before acting; TrademarkDashboard (trademarkdashboard.com) can provide a starting point for portfolio and filing analysis.