For those unaware - GPT stands for Generative pre-trained transformers (GPT). It's a type of a deep neural network architecture that builds on top of Transformers which was released by Google researchers. I'm wondering what would happen if someone copyrights "Transformers" now :-/
Not really, trademarks are industry-specific, and having a registered trademark in another industry where there is no reasonable confusion is not an obstacle.
For example, "Oracle" is a valid registered trademark for cigars and for archery bow sights and for many, many other things, despite also being a trademark for one of the most litigious firms in the software industry.
Are they industry specific? Monster Energy has a history of suing for trademark infringement over the word "Monster" in video game titles. Companies have caved to their requests. Unsure if that was due to validity or lack of willing to pay legal fees.
What is it with companies named Monster and over-reaching trademark lawsuits? I remember the days when Monster Cable sued monster.com, Disney (Monsters, Inc), some tiny mini golf outfit...
They are applied for in various bewildering categories so yes, kind of industry specific. I've always found the categories to be pretty bizarre and of course you can apply in multiple categories.
The key with trademarks is whether or not use/application of a trademark is "likelihood of confusion"[0].
So yeah, I can call my hardware store GPT and OpenAI can have GPT trademarked because there's no way someone could confuse them as the same thing. That's of course an easy example and if this trademark is issued anything even remotely touching AI/ML using the three letters "GPT" is probably infringing.
What's really ridiculous about this is the execs at OpenAI didn't see this coming - I think trademark application for GPT is going to be challenging while simultaneously making them look like jerks.
Plus, GPT is a non-sensical acronym to 99% of their market so other than the recognition they've created in calling it that there's no reason for this issue. They would have been much, much better off calling their GPTs and GPT-related products something (anything) that's actually unique and easily trademarked.
Geoffrey Hinton wrote it. I wonder if he'll have anything to say about OpenAI trademarking the term 11 years after he wrote this. Here's an earlier publication from January, 2012 talking about Hinton's 2011 "Generative pretraining" work: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/three-c...
> Geoffrey Hinton wrote it. I wonder if he'll have anything to say about OpenAI trademarking the term 11 years after he wrote this.
But they're not applying to trademark "generative pretraining". They're only applying to trademark GPT, which seems (I have very limited knowledge if there are other competing uses of the term) reasonable given that most people associate "GPT" with specific AI implementations created by OpenAI.
There were other "business machine" companies that existed 100 years ago, but that is very different from trademarking "IBM".
Interestingly, the record for OpenAI's application (for "GPT") has a note under "Goods and Services" that reads: "FIRST USE: 20181000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20181000" [1]
The paper "Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training" appears to have been released on June 11, 2018. [2]
1: It looks like I can't link directly to it, but it should be pretty easy to find by searching for "GPT" at the parent's link
I was curious and discovered that Google has a (non-AI, advertising related) product called GPT that has existed for ages, here's a reference from 2015 https://github.com/davidecantoni/googletag
I'm not sure if the industry is similar enough that this will be a problem for OpenAI (I suspect the fact that people are using GPT to refer to generative pre-trained transformer's in general is more of an issue for this application).
Good find. As the other commenter noted, however, trademarks are limited to the narrow field to which they apply. So I'm assuming OpenAI will be successful in getting a trademark for GPT in the field of generative AI, but it will be limited to that scope.
Thank you for mentioning GPT partition tables. The whole time I was reading this thread I kept feeling like there was something I was forgetting. I even just nuked one of my linux tinkering laptops this weekend and reinstalled.
Geppetto carved a puppet of wood,
And brought it to life as best he could.
Geppetto's dreams, so long ago,
Still echo in our quest to know,
Can we create a being so smart,
That it rivals the workings of the heart?
It's a trademark application, not a copyright application. Quite different. You see copyrighted material is that which a GPT has been trained on, without any regards to those rights or protections. While a GPT trademark, on the other hand, is an underhanded attempt to leverage that same disregarded legal protection to secure an exclusive brand for itself, in spite of existing uses of the generic acronym.
So the first one is a positive while the second is a negative?
And they fully considered the rights of ever bit of copyrighted material they consumed. It's not their fault random people on the internet don't understand what those rights are.
They do different things. Trademarks protect consumers from rip-off copies pretending to be what they want, copyright protects content creators from rip-off copies that genuinely are what consumers want.
> And they fully considered the rights of ever bit of copyrighted material they consumed.
Yes, they considered and decided that they are big enough to violate and do what they want, since they aren't violating rights of other big entities, just of nobodies.
Feel free to cite what they violated. People are really quick to claim this but can't back it up or grab one of two sentences from one of the copyright statutes and claim it's a clear violation without any understanding of what they just copied.
Grabbing random sentences from statue is a way for non-lawyers to get horribly confused. Those old Dilbert strips, the pointy-haired boss saying "I removed all your semicolons" or "I think mauve has the most RAM"? Lawyers will see us as the PHB.
(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.
This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
(3) In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work.
(4) Copying in relation to a film or broadcast includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film or broadcast.
…
(6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.
"""
I'm not even remotely a lawyer, so I don't know if this is as relevant as it appears.
Agreed, GPT has become too common for a trademark to be approved. It can even be revoked for becoming too common of a word for something, like "escalator" had happen many years ago.
Perhaps ChatGPT wasn't the best name for a product and OpenAI would have gone with something more trademarkable if they knew it would become such a hit. Still, my comment above is a simple application of Hanlon's razor.
ChatGPT is fine as a name, it's pretty distinct. But GPT2, GPT3, GPT4 is OpenAI using the term GPT as if they are the only ones making them. And apart from EleutherAI nobody really challenged that naming conventions so far.
>copyrighted material is that which a GPT has been trained on, without any regards to those rights or protections
AI's do not qualify as entities that can claim copy rights or protections, which ironically makes them not qualify as entities that can infringe copy rights or protections either.
I hope someone trademarks “Transformer”. It’s the stupidest name ever. The entire purpose of all code is to transform data. See 15 years of data oriented design discussion.
If I ever invent a specific ML design I’m going to call it “computer”. Because that’s as terrible of a name as “transformer”.
Literally every ML model is a transformer. Every single one of them. All of them are transformers. Using the word “transformer” to refer to a specific architecture is therefore absurd.
This is very different than naming a computer company Apple or Blackberry.
No stranger than Windows, given WIMP, even if you want to disregard the link to the trademarks for "transformer" (which I now realise doesn't work because the URL doesn't contain the search term, so here's one item from that list: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00...)
Trademarks are just like this, always have been, probably always will be.
I think Transformer is a stupid name. I think the researchers who chose the name Transformer are big poopyheads for picking a bad name. I’d rather they have named it after themselves, an anagram of their names, or whatever. I wish everyone would stop using the name Transformer. I hope it does get trademarked for the sole purpose of reducing its usage. Ideally to zero.
I hate analogies. I think it would be similar stupid if Epic Games renamed “Unreal Engine” to “Game Engine” or if Toyota renamed the Camry to “Car”.
It’s extremely different from Apple.
It’s vaguely similar to Windows. Except when I write the words “window” in code no one will confuse it for the Operating System. Meanwhile I have written quite a lot of ML code and have regularly used the terms “transform” and “transformer”. None of which have had anything to do with the “Transformer” architecture.
It's not copyright, it's trademark. It doesn't affect the ability of others to build GPT-like models, but it would prohibit others from calling whatever they build 'somethingGPT' or 'GPT-5'.
And if someone manages to trademark "transformers" (which IMHO is totally unlikely to succeed for multiple reasons), well then we'd shrug and call them something else, that wouldn't prohibit anyone from making or using transformer models.
Transformer is the architecture. "Generative Pretrained" is just a term made up by the author to mean what everyone called for decades before and will call for decades after "Language Modelling". It was just a new way of saying "Language Modelling Transformer" that sounded cooler to the author and gave it cool initials. Coming up with cool names for models is hard.
And IBM stands for International Business Machines. It didn’t make selling business machines internationally illegal. As far as I can see, OpenAI invented that term. Don’t see why they couldn’t trademark it.
They make their AI accessible to anyone. Sounds pretty open to me. Maybe not for developers, since they associate „open“ with open source, but surely for everyone else.
Isn't that the same as any other company offering services for money? The fact that they give freebies doesn't make them "open". It would be far too vague, nevermind that "open" already has a specific well-established meaning in the context.
Most executives and schoolchildren didn’t know what the hell they were a year ago. Now my middle schoolers are playing with them. That’s greater access by any reasonable measure.
You could have said the same thing about Netflix a decade ago, but naming themselves OpenStreaming would have been just as ridiculous. Having a popular product has nothing to do with being an open company.
It might not be the openness that OSS developers expect, but they're providing a platform for anyone to build on top of, whether it be hobbyist projects or commercial products.
Yes, of course, "anyone" can build a project on this platform. Unless of course they are anonymous, or broke, or want to touch on various medical topics, or demagraphic topics, or mention genitals, or if they violate any of the other dozens of vague current and future restrictions that OpenAI has in place.
Anybody can go buy a Camry and use it to build a business, sell Uber rides, or even use it as a platform to build aftermarket parts for converting them into taxis. That doesn't make Toyota open in any way.
It makes Toyota more open than Rolls Royce though. ChatGPT for free is amazing. $20/month is a steal. OpenAI could easily have chosen to be TotallyClosedAI, charged way more, and not have released it to the general public, leading the general public to flounder as tech elites suddenly became more productive, leaving everyone else behind.
Also, don't forget, it's only due to the Magnusson act and other acts that we have rights beyond what Ford wants to grant us on our cars. (Since Ford was the one in that lawsuit, Toyota came later.) If it were up to manufacturers, the hood would be welded shut, we wouldn't be allowed to use aftermarket parts at all, and they'd take a cut of every Uber ride.
I don't see Congress acting in the case of OpenToTheGeneralPublicAI and ChatGPT, unfortunately, but the car analogy falls short because software isn't the same as physical goods. Toyota's info about what cars are doing after being sold is limited, but they have to get them in the hands of customers. OpenAI can just let customers use ChatGPT via the website or an API and it's usable by customers.
A plugin is basically just an API that the provider allows ChatGPT to access, and a specification of that API. There's no reason you couldn't allow other non-OpenAI models to use your plugin too. Is OpenAI saying plugin providers -must- refer to their plugin as ChatGPT-exclusive, even if it's not?
Yea that's weird. I can underestand rules to avoid things like "OpenAI Barkbytes Plugin", but Barkbytes plugin compatible inegrated with ChatGPT seems fine.
They're talking about "BarkBytes plugin" (for ChatGPT), not "BarkBytes" the service nor BarkBytes plugins for any other service.
When you have a "plugin", you've developed software that plugs into something. They're telling you how they'd like to be referred to when you build a plugin for ChatGPT.
They don't care how you phrase "BarkBytes Safari plugin", "BarkBytes plugin for Garmin", or whatever.
If you look at what the "API" is, it's basically "write one and ChatGPT will figure it out". None of it is really ChatGPT-specific, so any plugin is compatible with other LLMs pretty much by definition.
No. You can use trademarked terms all you want in all sorts of writings. What you can't do is trade using that name. Merely discussing a trademarked product is always allowed. And the ™ symbol is for unregistered trademarks, whereas ® is used for registered marks. In either case, these symbols are used by the company that owns or claims the marks, or by affiliates who agree to mark them as such when licensing the marks.
I am not even remotely a lawyer so this is all just, like, what I think I know.
Nominative reference to OpenAI's GPT would not be restricted, however, if you'd want to assert that the thing you made in your experiment is GPT or GPT-like, that might be iffy.
They applied for GPT-3 back at december 2020; however, the trademark application for "GPT" (without the numbers) is a relatively new one, from december 2022.
I couldn't resist asking ChatGPT to help with this:
---
Filing a trademark opposition is a legal process that allows an individual or entity to challenge the registration of a trademark that they believe may infringe on their own rights or cause confusion in the marketplace. The process may vary slightly depending on the jurisdiction, but here are the general steps you can follow:
1. Monitor trademark publications: Keep an eye on trademark registers, such as the Official Gazette in the United States, to identify trademarks that you believe may infringe on your rights.
2. Understand the grounds for opposition: Ensure you have valid grounds for opposing the registration, such as the likelihood of confusion, similarity with an earlier mark, bad faith filing, or a lack of distinctiveness.
3. Check the deadline for opposition: Be aware of the deadline for filing an opposition, which typically starts from the date the mark is published. Deadlines may vary by jurisdiction, so ensure you are aware of the specific deadline in your country.
4. Gather supporting evidence: Collect any evidence that supports your opposition, including documents that demonstrate your use of the mark, evidence of confusion in the marketplace, or any other relevant materials.
5. Prepare and file the Notice of Opposition: Draft a formal Notice of Opposition that outlines the grounds for your opposition and includes all supporting evidence. This document must be filed with the appropriate trademark office or tribunal, such as the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in the United States.
6. Serve the notice on the applicant: In some jurisdictions, you may be required to serve a copy of the Notice of Opposition on the applicant or their legal representative.
7. Participate in the opposition proceedings: After filing your opposition, you may need to participate in various stages of the proceedings, including discovery, pretrial disclosures, and trial. This may involve submitting additional evidence, deposing witnesses, or attending hearings.
8. Await the decision: The trademark office or tribunal will issue a decision based on the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. If the opposition is successful, the opposed trademark application may be refused or subject to certain conditions. If unsuccessful, the opposed mark will proceed to registration.
It's important to note that trademark opposition can be a complex and time-consuming process. It's often advisable to consult with an experienced trademark attorney to ensure that your opposition is filed correctly and to increase your chances of success.
They'll never be able to "ensure artificial general intelligence that benefits the whole of humanity" without the ability to force GPT-J to change its name...
They're going to have to clear a pretty big hurdle in establishing a trademark once it's been out in commerce for so long.
But let's assume that they do. I actually think this will prove to be a good move for the ML ecosystem over the long term. There are so many products branding themselves as "[Vertical]GPT" that many non-technical users are under the illusion that the solution is endorsed by the same people that make ChatGPT. People in the tech circle knows that OpenAI isn't pushing out "DogBarkGPT" but with the shared suffix that's not immediately obvious. Their suggested "powered by GPT" is a much more honest phrasing.
While being too aggressive about brand guidelines and usage patterns can unintentionally harm innovation and competitors, I don't think encouraging others to stay away from capturing the phrase credibility is a bad idea.
I get a feeling that this wasn't planned, that this "just happened" after the release of ChatGPT and by that time it was obvious that "GPT" was the brand people were talking about and you can't simply turn the tide.
The trademark application was from december 2022, after the release of chatGPT. If they wanted to use GPT as a brand name, they'd have filed the trademark before that, perhaps back in 2020 when the GPT-3 trademark application was submitted without trying to also trademark "GPT" as such.
> I get a feeling that this wasn't planned, that this "just happened" after the release of ChatGPT and by that time it was obvious that "GPT" was the brand people were talking about and you can't simply turn the tide.
That's their problem though. Trying to trademark a well known term of art that you didn't even come up with is a very bad trick.
I don't think that this is a "well known term of art" - IMHO in all the articles of last year and earlier (so before the trademark application and chatGPT proliferation) when I've seen "GPT" used it was always in reference to one of the specific OpenAI models, not to something else.
IANAL, but I don’t know that that would actually be a hurdle. As I understand it, you can apply for a trademark on a name long after you start using it, if you can prove that the word has become associated with your product in its industry.
It’s just riskier to wait, since in the meantime a competitor could try to blur the mark by naming their product similarly to yours, and you’d have no way to stop them if they succeeded in getting a lot of mindshare.
OpenAI would be better off moving away from using "GPT" in their product names rather than trying to take the name back.
While I am sure their core reasoning is confusion (it seems every AI product now, whether on the API or using another model throws "GPT" in the name), and I think they could make a good case, the phrase is to general and too widespread now.
Come up with something else, do a name change, trademark, and move on.
nope, GPT is in the public consciousness now, and no matter how awkward, that is a precious enough market position to have that it is not worth changing imo
Hopefully they will publicly commit to only using this trademark defensively if granted. In other words, to give OpenAI the benefit of the doubt here, they may just want to prevent someone else from trademarking "GPT" and taking legal action against them.
183 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 290 ms ] threadFor example, "Oracle" is a valid registered trademark for cigars and for archery bow sights and for many, many other things, despite also being a trademark for one of the most litigious firms in the software industry.
https://news.yahoo.com/monster-energy-tried-pok-mon-22450025...
Monster has been involved in esports previously.
https://www.monsterenergy.com/gaming
A famous example is Apple Computer and Apple Corps (the Beatles music holding company) with a long history of arguing about lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
The key with trademarks is whether or not use/application of a trademark is "likelihood of confusion"[0].
So yeah, I can call my hardware store GPT and OpenAI can have GPT trademarked because there's no way someone could confuse them as the same thing. That's of course an easy example and if this trademark is issued anything even remotely touching AI/ML using the three letters "GPT" is probably infringing.
What's really ridiculous about this is the execs at OpenAI didn't see this coming - I think trademark application for GPT is going to be challenging while simultaneously making them look like jerks.
Plus, GPT is a non-sensical acronym to 99% of their market so other than the recognition they've created in calling it that there's no reason for this issue. They would have been much, much better off calling their GPTs and GPT-related products something (anything) that's actually unique and easily trademarked.
[0] - https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/likelihood-confusion
e.g.,
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/category/transformers/11
The first occurrence of that particular term I can find on Google Scholar is in 2019 ("Documentation is all you need" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Generative+pre-train...)
Edit: it looks like it was OpenAI. (Radford et al, 2018).
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h...
Google Trends shows it first got searched for in measurable quantity back in 2008.
Geoffrey Hinton wrote it. I wonder if he'll have anything to say about OpenAI trademarking the term 11 years after he wrote this. Here's an earlier publication from January, 2012 talking about Hinton's 2011 "Generative pretraining" work: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/three-c...
But they're not applying to trademark "generative pretraining". They're only applying to trademark GPT, which seems (I have very limited knowledge if there are other competing uses of the term) reasonable given that most people associate "GPT" with specific AI implementations created by OpenAI.
There were other "business machine" companies that existed 100 years ago, but that is very different from trademarking "IBM".
The paper "Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training" appears to have been released on June 11, 2018. [2]
1: It looks like I can't link directly to it, but it should be pretty easy to find by searching for "GPT" at the parent's link
2: https://openai.com/research/language-unsupervised
I'm not sure if the industry is similar enough that this will be a problem for OpenAI (I suspect the fact that people are using GPT to refer to generative pre-trained transformer's in general is more of an issue for this application).
GPT partition tables also come to mind.
Geppetto carved a puppet of wood, And brought it to life as best he could. Geppetto's dreams, so long ago, Still echo in our quest to know, Can we create a being so smart, That it rivals the workings of the heart?
And they fully considered the rights of ever bit of copyrighted material they consumed. It's not their fault random people on the internet don't understand what those rights are.
Yes, they considered and decided that they are big enough to violate and do what they want, since they aren't violating rights of other big entities, just of nobodies.
So, while I can point to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
and quote from it:
"""
17 Infringement of copyright by copying
…
(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.
This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
(3) In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work.
(4) Copying in relation to a film or broadcast includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film or broadcast.
…
(6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.
"""
I'm not even remotely a lawyer, so I don't know if this is as relevant as it appears.
But it does appear relevant.
https://www.bentley.edu/news/popular-brands-had-their-tradem...
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733261&caseType=SERIAL_...
(Interestingly enough there's a Chinese ecig/vape company that also looking to trademark ChatGPT.)
Are there any legal protections available to me in this regard?
AI's do not qualify as entities that can claim copy rights or protections, which ironically makes them not qualify as entities that can infringe copy rights or protections either.
If I ever invent a specific ML design I’m going to call it “computer”. Because that’s as terrible of a name as “transformer”.
As has "Transformer": https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmtext/page/Results
Or, y'know, "Apple", "Orange", "Blackberry", "Windows", etc.
Literally every ML model is a transformer. Every single one of them. All of them are transformers. Using the word “transformer” to refer to a specific architecture is therefore absurd.
This is very different than naming a computer company Apple or Blackberry.
Trademarks are just like this, always have been, probably always will be.
I think Transformer is a stupid name. I think the researchers who chose the name Transformer are big poopyheads for picking a bad name. I’d rather they have named it after themselves, an anagram of their names, or whatever. I wish everyone would stop using the name Transformer. I hope it does get trademarked for the sole purpose of reducing its usage. Ideally to zero.
I hate analogies. I think it would be similar stupid if Epic Games renamed “Unreal Engine” to “Game Engine” or if Toyota renamed the Camry to “Car”.
It’s extremely different from Apple.
It’s vaguely similar to Windows. Except when I write the words “window” in code no one will confuse it for the Operating System. Meanwhile I have written quite a lot of ML code and have regularly used the terms “transform” and “transformer”. None of which have had anything to do with the “Transformer” architecture.
And if someone manages to trademark "transformers" (which IMHO is totally unlikely to succeed for multiple reasons), well then we'd shrug and call them something else, that wouldn't prohibit anyone from making or using transformer models.
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76051283&caseType=SERIAL_...
Maybe they will create ChatGPT-powered Autobot and Decepticon toys?
https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:29...
Or check this link https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733259&caseType=SERIAL_...
Not sure how long this will be valid.
A better link that (I think) will actually work would be:
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733259&caseType=SERIAL_N...
NVDA is might have a claim on “graphics processing unit” but that’s a way less valuable mark than “GPU”
https://www.computer.org/publications/tech-news/chasing-pixe...
Defining it as such, makes it meaningless. Open, in software, means much greater access.
It might not be the openness that OSS developers expect, but they're providing a platform for anyone to build on top of, whether it be hobbyist projects or commercial products.
Also, don't forget, it's only due to the Magnusson act and other acts that we have rights beyond what Ford wants to grant us on our cars. (Since Ford was the one in that lawsuit, Toyota came later.) If it were up to manufacturers, the hood would be welded shut, we wouldn't be allowed to use aftermarket parts at all, and they'd take a cut of every Uber ride.
I don't see Congress acting in the case of OpenToTheGeneralPublicAI and ChatGPT, unfortunately, but the car analogy falls short because software isn't the same as physical goods. Toyota's info about what cars are doing after being sold is limited, but they have to get them in the hands of customers. OpenAI can just let customers use ChatGPT via the website or an API and it's usable by customers.
OpenAI is anything but open, but IMHO trademarking their product names is one of their more reasonable actions.
It's like trademarking "Operating System", completely ridiculous.
https://openai.com/brand
Do:
BarkBytes plugin for ChatGPT
BarkBytes ChatGPT plugin
Don’t:
BarkBytes plugin for OpenAI
BarkBytes plugin compatible with ChatGPT
BarkBytes plugin works with ChatGPT
BarkBytes plugin integrated with ChatGPT
A plugin is basically just an API that the provider allows ChatGPT to access, and a specification of that API. There's no reason you couldn't allow other non-OpenAI models to use your plugin too. Is OpenAI saying plugin providers -must- refer to their plugin as ChatGPT-exclusive, even if it's not?
When you have a "plugin", you've developed software that plugs into something. They're telling you how they'd like to be referred to when you build a plugin for ChatGPT.
They don't care how you phrase "BarkBytes Safari plugin", "BarkBytes plugin for Garmin", or whatever.
> BarkBytes plugin works with ChatGPT
> BarkBytes plugin integrated with ChatGPT
Aren't these three just literal statements of fact, in the same way one might say "XYZ app works with iOS"?
I'm not sure how to share with persistent session
I am not even remotely a lawyer so this is all just, like, what I think I know.
I don't see the point though, it's not like some amazing name
Common words are fine for Trademarks but in this case "GPT" could be considered a "generic" form however in a very niche field.
My understanding is that "Apple" as the trademark for a computer company is fine. "Apple" for a brand of apple juice would not be.
---
Filing a trademark opposition is a legal process that allows an individual or entity to challenge the registration of a trademark that they believe may infringe on their own rights or cause confusion in the marketplace. The process may vary slightly depending on the jurisdiction, but here are the general steps you can follow:
1. Monitor trademark publications: Keep an eye on trademark registers, such as the Official Gazette in the United States, to identify trademarks that you believe may infringe on your rights.
2. Understand the grounds for opposition: Ensure you have valid grounds for opposing the registration, such as the likelihood of confusion, similarity with an earlier mark, bad faith filing, or a lack of distinctiveness.
3. Check the deadline for opposition: Be aware of the deadline for filing an opposition, which typically starts from the date the mark is published. Deadlines may vary by jurisdiction, so ensure you are aware of the specific deadline in your country.
4. Gather supporting evidence: Collect any evidence that supports your opposition, including documents that demonstrate your use of the mark, evidence of confusion in the marketplace, or any other relevant materials.
5. Prepare and file the Notice of Opposition: Draft a formal Notice of Opposition that outlines the grounds for your opposition and includes all supporting evidence. This document must be filed with the appropriate trademark office or tribunal, such as the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in the United States.
6. Serve the notice on the applicant: In some jurisdictions, you may be required to serve a copy of the Notice of Opposition on the applicant or their legal representative.
7. Participate in the opposition proceedings: After filing your opposition, you may need to participate in various stages of the proceedings, including discovery, pretrial disclosures, and trial. This may involve submitting additional evidence, deposing witnesses, or attending hearings.
8. Await the decision: The trademark office or tribunal will issue a decision based on the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. If the opposition is successful, the opposed trademark application may be refused or subject to certain conditions. If unsuccessful, the opposed mark will proceed to registration.
It's important to note that trademark opposition can be a complex and time-consuming process. It's often advisable to consult with an experienced trademark attorney to ensure that your opposition is filed correctly and to increase your chances of success.
But let's assume that they do. I actually think this will prove to be a good move for the ML ecosystem over the long term. There are so many products branding themselves as "[Vertical]GPT" that many non-technical users are under the illusion that the solution is endorsed by the same people that make ChatGPT. People in the tech circle knows that OpenAI isn't pushing out "DogBarkGPT" but with the shared suffix that's not immediately obvious. Their suggested "powered by GPT" is a much more honest phrasing.
While being too aggressive about brand guidelines and usage patterns can unintentionally harm innovation and competitors, I don't think encouraging others to stay away from capturing the phrase credibility is a bad idea.
The trademark application was from december 2022, after the release of chatGPT. If they wanted to use GPT as a brand name, they'd have filed the trademark before that, perhaps back in 2020 when the GPT-3 trademark application was submitted without trying to also trademark "GPT" as such.
That's their problem though. Trying to trademark a well known term of art that you didn't even come up with is a very bad trick.
It’s just riskier to wait, since in the meantime a competitor could try to blur the mark by naming their product similarly to yours, and you’d have no way to stop them if they succeeded in getting a lot of mindshare.
This was even tested with "google" [2].
[1] https://www.bentley.edu/news/popular-brands-had-their-tradem....
[2] https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/google_retains_its_t...
https://web.archive.org/web/20230424200928/https://tmsearch....
While I am sure their core reasoning is confusion (it seems every AI product now, whether on the API or using another model throws "GPT" in the name), and I think they could make a good case, the phrase is to general and too widespread now.
Come up with something else, do a name change, trademark, and move on.
Apparently, they... didn't even pay the petition fee
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn97733259&docI...
https://estta.uspto.gov/noo/q.jsp?formname=filing-type&noo-s...
thay already have dalle and codex they should have given the chatbot a more patentable name