(OpenAI, Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc., et al., No. 23-3918, N.D. Calif.)
(Opinion available. Document #46-250806-016Z.)
In a complaint filed in August 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, OpenAI says that soon after it announced its founding, Guy Ravine and his company, Open Artificial Intelligence Inc., sought to trademark the term “Open AI” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). OpenAI says Ravine is interfering with its own attempts to register its mark with the USPTO. OpenAI alleges trademark infringement and unfair competition under Title 15 U.S. Code Section 1125(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), common-law trademark infringement and fraudulent registration under Title 15 U.S. Code Section 1120, 15 U.S.C. § 1120, and cancellation–no bona fide use and cancellation–misrepresenting source under Title 15 U.S. Code Section 1119, 15 U.S.C. § 1119. Ravine and Open Artificial Intelligence filed counterclaims.
On April 17, 2025, OpenAI moved for summary judgment. All told, the motion encompassed a dozen claims.
The claims at issue against Ravine and Open Artificial Intelligence were: trademark infringement, unfair competition under Section 1125, common-law trademark infringement, fraudulent registration, cancellation–no bona fide use and cancellation–misrepresenting source.
The counterclaims against OpenAI were: violation of Section 1125 and Section 1114, common-law trademark infringement, declaratory judgment of noninfringing trademark under the Lanham Act, declaratory judgment of ownership of the Open AI mark and trademark invalidity.
Cancellation
Addressing the claims involving cancellation of the Open AI mark, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Ravine made two misrepresentations to the USPTO. In the first, Ravine filed a substitute specimen and indicated that it was in use at the time of his original application when it was not. Secondly, Ravine indicated that his Hub program was in use. But Hub was not available in 2015, and nothing he submitted suggested a commercial use of it, Judge Rogers said.
Ravine claims he did not know his submission violated the law, Judge Rogers said. But this argument is not supported by the record. To the extent Ravine argues that attorneys often submit false information to the USPTO, it does not make the conduct proper in this case, Judge Rogers said.
Judge Rogers granted summary judgment to OpenAI on the claims for fraudulent registration and cancellation and Ravine’s counterclaim under Section 1114.
The judge found that Ravine’s Open AI mark was not inherently distinctive. The Open AI mark is descriptive as it describes a feature. Notably, Ravine did not dispute the descriptive designation when the USPTO applied it to the mark, Judge Rogers said.
Commercial Use
Ravine suggests the issue is best left for a jury and points to expert testimony on the issue, Judge Rogers said. But the expert report does not create a genuine dispute. That there are multiple possible meanings of the term “open” does not mean that Ravine’s use encompasses them all. Nor has Ravine’s use acquired a secondary meaning. Ravine produced nothing suggesting Open AI had acquired a secondary meaning, arguing instead only that a jury could conclude that it did, Judge Rogers said.
Judge Rogers also granted summary judgment to OpenAI on its Section 1125 claim and common-law trademark claim and Ravine’s declaratory judgment crossclaim.
On OpenAI’s trademark infringement claims, Judge Rogers said the company and Ravine operated in “different lanes” and different purposes. But Open AI’s offerings were centered around collaborative efforts and were never a commercial concern. So while both users were in the AI space, they targeted different segments, Judge Rogers said.
Even adopting the “highly debatable” position that Ravine was the first to use the Open AI mark in commerce, no reasonable juror could find that OpenAI did not acquire a secondary meaning by November 2022 when Ravine launched an image tool in the wake of OpenAI’s Dall-E 2 tool, Judge Rogers said. OpenAI was repeatedly offering and advertising products under the OpenAI mark and was active on social media under the mark. The fact that OpenAI didn’t use the mark in traditional advertising does not matter, Judge Rogers said.
While Ravine was also releasing tools, the evidence shows that very few people used those tools outside of friends, former employees or investors, Judge Rogers said.
The judge also granted summary judgment to OpenAI on the trademark infringement claims and Ravine’s remaining counterclaims.
Counsel
OpenAI is represented by Robert M. Schwartz and Aaron H. Perahia of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP in Los Angeles, Sam S. Stake of the firm’s San Francisco office, Margret M. Caruso and Robert P. Feldman of its Redwood Shores, Calif., office and William B. Adams and Dylan I. Scher of its New York office.
Open Artificial Intelligence and Ravine are represented by Ryan G. Baker and Scott M. Malzahn of Waymaker LLP in Los Angeles.
(Additional documents available: OpenAI’s corrected motion for summary judgment. Document #46-250806-017M. Ravine’s opposition. Document #46-250806-018B. OpenAI’s reply. Document #46-250806-019B. OpenAI’s errata to reply. Document #46-250806-020B. Complaint. Document #46-230816-003C.)