The OPENAI Judgment (T-555/25): EU General Court Weighs the Distinctiveness of “AI”-Based Signs
In its judgment of 15 July 2026, the General Court upheld the EUIPO's finding that the OPENAI word mark is descriptive and devoid of distinctive character for certain software and IT goods and services. The ruling is significant as one of the first substantive assessments by the EU judiciary of the registrability of “AI”-based signs in the age of artificial intelligence.
Procedural background
US-based OpenAI, Inc. applied to register the word sign “OPENAI” as an EU trade mark for a range of goods and services. The EUIPO partially refused the application for certain goods and services in Classes 9, 42 and 45 — in particular software, cloud computing services and identity verification services. The ground for refusal was that the sign was descriptive (Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR) and consequently devoid of distinctive character (Article 7(1)(b)) in relation to those goods and services.
According to the EUIPO, for a non-negligible proportion of the English-speaking public, the term “OPENAI” directly conveyed the message that the goods and services were provided using, or connected with, openly accessible (“open”) artificial intelligence (“AI”). The sign therefore could not be protected as an EU trade mark for those goods and services.
OpenAI challenged the decision before the General Court of the European Union, seeking annulment on three grounds: infringement of the ground for refusal concerning descriptive signs, infringement of the ground concerning signs devoid of distinctive character, and infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration, on the basis that the EUIPO had accepted similar marks in the past.
The Court's reasoning
The General Court (Eighth Chamber), by its judgment of 15 July 2026, upheld the EUIPO's partial refusal and dismissed the action. The Court held that, for the relevant English-speaking public, the sign “OPENAI” simply describes “openly accessible artificial intelligence” and therefore cannot constitute a valid word mark.
As to the equal-treatment and sound-administration ground, the Court emphasised that the EU trade mark system is autonomous from national systems and from decisions of third countries. While the EUIPO must consider its decisions on similar applications with particular care, the principles of equal treatment and sound administration must be reconciled with the principle of legality and the need for a stringent and thorough examination in each case. Earlier registrations made by the EUIPO's first-instance bodies bind neither the Boards of Appeal nor the Court.
The judgment did not resolve acquired distinctiveness through use (Article 7(3)) on the merits; that question was left for a separate assessment. OpenAI may use consumer-recognition evidence in that process to argue that the sign identifies a single undertaking.
Analysis
The ruling's principled significance lies in confirming, at the level of the EU judiciary, the descriptiveness threshold for signs built around an element that directly evokes a technology category such as “AI”. By finding the sign descriptive not merely at the administrative stage but under direct judicial review, the Court clarified the line concerning the inherent lack of distinctiveness of such marks.
The emphasis on the autonomy of the EU trade mark system is equally notable: the fact that a sign has been accepted in other jurisdictions or under the EUIPO's past practice does not determine the outcome of a current, independent descriptiveness examination. This approach reaffirms the limited weight of the “prior registration” argument in EU trade mark law.
The judgment may be appealed to the Court of Justice (CJEU).
Citation: Case T-555/25, OpenAI, Inc. v EUIPO, General Court of the European Union (Eighth Chamber), 15 July 2026. EUR-Lex CELEX: 62025TJ0555. Contested decision: EUIPO Board of Appeal, R 190/2025-5, 10 June 2025.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.