OpenAI came after our domain because we use GPT in it
OpenAl brand guideline outreach
Dear Team, We are contacting you on behalf of our client OpenAl, Inc. ("OpenAI"). Our job is to work with developers to ensure that they are marketing their products in accordance with OpenAl's brand guidelines https://openal.com/brandand in a way that doesn't create confusion for the consumer.
Today, we're writing regarding your use of the mark "GPT" in connection with your GPT' product.
https://branddb.wipo.int/en/quicksearch/brand/CH502023000001493? by-brandName&v=GPT&rows=30&sort=score%20desc&start=0& -1682836548861&fcstatus-Registered&fcdesign ation=CH&I=Q
Stating "GPT" is inaccurate and may imply a partnership or endorsement where there isn't one. If your project uses GPT-3, GPT-4, or ChatGPT you may choose to say in the Product description (not in the Product/Site name) that it is "Powered by GPT-3" or "Powered by GPT-4" or "Powered by ChatGPT" and/or "Powered by DALLE" as applicable. We do not permit model names in products/site titles because there is concern that it can confuse end users, and it also triggers our enforcement mechanisms. It's important to identify the GPT-3, GPT-4, or ChatGPT (or DALL-E) model specifically, as opposed to just referencing GPT.
Please reply to this message by 05.10.2023 to let us know that you received it and intend to make the applicable changes. If you have any questions, please contact us directly at openal@brandshield.com.
Sincerely,
BrandShield Ltd.
174 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 252 ms ] thread[1] Apparently it's really a thing, funny, https://closedai.com
You will never guess what excrement of theirs that I called them on.
https://www.donhopkins.com/home/catalog/text/bsml.html
A manufacturer of solid lubricants made from a mixture of polymers, oils, and other additives also complained to me about my web site about Microsoft Monopoly. I wouldn't sell, but they grabbed it up after I let it expire.
https://donhopkins.com/home/Micropoly/
https://www.micropoly.com/
EinsteinGPT and BloombergGPT exist, so I'm left wondering if that's true.
>Please reply to this message by 05.10.2023 to let us know that you received it and intend to make the applicable changes.
How effing arrogant do you have to be to say something like this? No "please respond and we can talk about it", it's "please confirm you know we're the big guys, and you're going to do what we say".
Should be for October 5, according to that format.
For most of the world, using slashes also implies DD/MM/YYYY. For instance, I would write today's date as 17/05/2023.
Somebody should check if those days are generally associated with fewer accidents, higher stock returns and a pronounced sense of global peace and harmony
It's clearly intended to be 5th of October, 2023.
(This may or may not be sarcasm, in case people may not or may misunderstand)
Then again, we write our dates in a more sensible manner. I suppose it's time to link to the old sapir whorf hypothesis[0] to explain the difference.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
yawn
Yeah we write our dates in a more sensible manner too. And also we drive on the correct side of the road and imperial units of measurement are superior.
for example a 10cm cube filled with water weighs 1 kilo and is 1 liter, boils at 100 degrees. In the US you deal with cups pints, quarts, gallons... and you can't even convert easily between dry and liquid stuff
I do agree that steering wheels should be on the left :-)
Electronics is full of imperial standards.
Usage of "Mil" in PCB design ( 1/1000th of an inch ).
If you look into an average computer or electronics device, lots and lots of stuff is imperial.
By that logic, all formatted dates should follow a progression of precision. This is, in fact, a standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
It's one of those things that America inherited from England, and then when England changed its method, the Americans saw no need to change because it wasn't part of England anymore.†
If you go into antiques stores in England, you will find that with items that are engraved, the older it is, the more likely it will have the now-American date format.
There was an item on Antiques Roadshow a couple of months ago that was a gift from Queen Victoria to someone that had an engraving that included the American date format.
† This is true for a surprising number of minor differences between America and England. In life, it's often better to understand the history of things, rather than just ignorantly write off a group of people as bizarre.
https://github.com/google/mediapipe/blob/master/mediapipe/mo...
"They trademarked GPT and all I got was this T-shirt"
Open Audio Library?
Your case might be different, but you may want to ask for professional advice as well.
https://workspace.google.com/marketplace/app/k10_ai_email_as...
The formulation that Microsoft allowed was “N for Windows”, but not “WindowsN” or similar. (For example, SuperFixer 1.0 for Windows instead of WindowsSuperFixer 1.0)
I wonder how God feels about that one.
I think this should not be allowed for OpenAI to own this term
>The concept and first such model were introduced in 2018 by the American artificial intelligence organization OpenAI
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/inno/stories/news/2...
**From the article:
"...the actual phrase GPT, standing for generative pre-trained transformer, is a broad term describing the AI technology. The term was first introduced in 2018 in a research paper published by OpenAI, but has since been used to describe any AI model that meet certain criteria.
This broad use could cause problems for OpenAI as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says it can refuse to trademark a term that is 'merely descriptive.'"
[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90763993/why-marc-jacobs-and-ohi...
Trademarking a common word is not usually a problem, as the trademark only applies within a specific industry. For a famous example, a small IT startup (Apple Computer Company) was allowed to use the same name as one of the biggest and most famous record labels in the world - the Beatles' own Apple Records. Both continue to exist to this day, with their respective trademarks, though of course their relative importance has slightly shifted.
I get that people have a negative attitude towards the company because the "open" in its name basically turned out to be massive bait. But this is business as usual and trademarks exist for good reasons.
OP should not communicate with OpenAI without a lawyer at this point.
The one exception is if this vaguely threatening letter turns into a formal cease and desist, and OP cannot budget for a lawyer.
Also, I'm pretty sure you can't claim trademark infringement for an empty page and a domain made of generic words, because trademarks are limited to context.
https://www.soscisurvey.de/tools/view-chars.php
"Something 𝗌omething will launched on Novemᖯer 3rd"
This "plain text" string has two markers that aren't actually ascii, `𝗌` and `ᖯ`. By changing the markers for each person you send it, you might be able to track down who is leaking things, if they're careless and just copy-paste stuff that look like plaintext but actually isn't.
Anything that is a homoglyph (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoglyph) can be used in this manner
I would seem OpenAI now have very little autonomy as a company. Since any IP they currently have can be taken by Microsoft there's very little incentive for other companies to invest. And since OpenAI isn't profitable they are now 100% dependent on Microsoft to continue operating.
I think we may as well consider OpenAI a Microsoft acquisition since this appears to more accurately describe the relationship here.
Perhaps Sam Altman was just too stupid to understand this, but I suspect that isn't the case. It seems he probably knew OpenAI would effectively become a Microsoft research project as part of their deal, and therefore we should probably assume that they will operate with for-profit incentives – and with those of Microsoft's more specifically.
I guess what I'm saying is that this doesn't surprise me, and I'd expect more of this to come.
How does he know this? Is it because the terms of the OpenAI / MSFT deal are public knowledge? Or is he just making it up?
As far as I know, the terms of their deal with Microsoft aren’t public, but all the reporting I’ve seen has suggested the opposite - that OpenAI basically kept full control over anything resembling the crown jewels. And why wouldn’t they? It was a frothier market when the deal was made, and it’s not like they couldn’t have raised capital from dozens of other sources.
Like you said the legal details aren't public, but I can't imagine they don't have access to some of the IP.
I would find this hard to believe.
And as an initial investor in OpenAI I'd assume that Musk would be connected enough to get details about the deal even if those details haven't been made public.
Yep, there's the weasel word, "reputable."
There are plenty of sources, you can simply google it. What sources would you consider "reputable?"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/allen-texas-mall-mass-shoo...
Also consider what “Hispanic” means in the first place. Plus, ultimately, anyone can have any beliefs if they really want to. If you’re non-white and try to be a white supremacist, it’s not like the universe will prevent you from doing so.
I have the craziest hunch that maybe you aren’t being genuine, but I’ll leave that alone.
If the Oklahoma city bombers did not leave behind any jihadist or pro-Islam writing of any sort and only left behind their white supremacy stuff I don't think they would have been labelled as Muslim terrorists if they did their attack soon after 9/11. The media very likely would have done something more like "white supremacy as displayed by the Oklahoma City Bombing is similar to the jihadist doctrine displayed by Al-Qaeda". Which is to say the media would have made links between the two (some spurious, some genuine) without actually saying the Oklahoma City Bombing was done by Muslim terrorists. This is so obvious to me to the point that I am beginning to feel empathetic to commenters doubting your being genuine - as much as I hate to admit it since I think trusting others are arguing in good faith is generally a better norm.
Whether the 9/11 era or now when someone commits a crime and actually leaves behind writing where they admit their beliefs, and motivation this is what they get labelled as. Why are you surprised when someone like Mauricio Garcia who admits white supremacist beliefs is then labelled as one by the media? Or is your claim that actually his writing is not white supremacist?
In any case, I'm confident that their researchers could come up with something else if Microsoft truly decided to "take them over". Furthermore, it seems like it's still a mutually beneficial arrangement.
If you are in Switzerland, you might have a right to use the domain because you registered it before the trademark was registered. Ask a trademark attorney about application of Art. 14 of the Swiss Trademark Code.
Plus, they may have no right to enforce anything at all if you do not use the domain for their registered goods/services. Again, ask a trademark attorney.
1. Can you claim that GPT are your initials? (Is your name George Patrick Tanner? Gina Parker Taylor?)
2. If you are using it for AI, then you're not going to be able to show that "GPT" is a term of art predating their company. The first appearance of the term for AI is from a paper by OpenAI.
3. Check the dates. Did you register your domain name before they filed their patent/trademark? (They filed in on Feb 3, 2023.) If so, then you have an argument for prior art.
4. Don't make an offer to sell (even in jest) without talking to an attorney. They could interpret it as a bad-faith negotiation and take the domain.
5. Do you plan to use the web site for something unrelated to AI? Information about GUID Partition Tables? Goniopora Toxin? General-purpose technologies? Generalized probabilistic theory? Grounded practical theory? Anything like this doesn't compete with their trademark.
IANAL but that's just the swiss trademark. The US trademark is from Dec 22, 2022. Serial number 97733259.
That didnt work so well in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
Or in other words, we didn't get to find out how well it would work.
> Robertson opined that – had legal proceedings ensued – Rowe would have made a strong argument for keeping his domain, as he was using his real name and was not claiming to be affiliated with Microsoft.
What small company or individual has the tens of thousands of spare dollars to actually litigate/defend? It doesn't matter if a settlement was reached or whether a strong argument was made --- if you have to spend 10k, or 15k, or 20k to go retain lawyers...it hasn't worked out well!
These robo-takedown outfits are a form of spam in my view. If you are publishing large sites or include user generated content you've probably run into them more than once. From what I've seen claimed as infringing it is obvious that there is no human review process. Compare to the expense of filing court actions for bulk frivolous claims.
Typically they can be ignored if your hosting provider is game. Their first step will be to try to harvest your data by provoking a response. If you do feel compelled to respond, be sure to run it by someone with legal expertise. Anything you say can be misconstrued in the worst possible way.
At the end of the day, these companies want to produce metrics to say, "We defended your brand from N number of verified infringement incidents this quarter. Based on the escalating threat volume, we recommend giving us more money going forward..."
IANAL, but I would avoid interacting with these 3rd party trolls. If they truly want to send a demand letter, ChatGPT's lawyers should send it by courier and obtain receipt of your signature. Until then I wouldn't take it seriously. This doesn't even rise to the level of a genuine legal threat or registered demand letter. It is more of a scare tactic.
However, note that they do not use the word trademark anywhere. That's because they do not yet own the trademark on GPT [0], it's still awaiting examination. I'm not an expert here, but this letter feels to me like they're starting to try to intimidate people into following their guidelines as prep work to ensure that it doesn't become generic before they even get the trademark.
Again, IANAL and I'm not giving advice, but this is not a trademark infringement warning because there is (as of yet) no trademark.
[0] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733259&caseSearchType=U...
Before the EUTM [0], the EU trade mark office, they're currently in opposition proceedings with no oppositions registered.
AFAIK the term GPT is entirely descriptive (so not distinctive) and so is unsuitable for use as a trademark. It should be refused, but I wouldn't expect trademark examiners to have heard of generative-pretraining, nor that this can be applied to transformers to make a gpt. Unless someone tells them then I expect the application by OpenAI would be allowed.
That said, OpenAI can use the term "trademark" if they're using that term as a mark of origin for goods or services, it doesn't need to be registered first (at which point it becomes an RTM and can use the (R) symbol). Indeed you can register a mark as having acquired distinctiveness through your prior use as a trademark ("acquired distinctiveness").
[0] https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/01883665...
How does one tell "them" and why don't you?
https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/opposition#:~:text=How....
Someone should really use ChatGPT to write an opposition letter and submit for the lols
Opposition has a fee, and it's probably not appropriate for me personally to be involved (I work in IP, not in TMs). Maybe I'll look at anonymous submissions under Art.5 EUTMR.
(That link says it is obsolete, I'm assuming that the procedure has just been updated.)
In this case they have applied for Nice classes 9 and 42.
I'm not sure, but also seem to recall that protection within those classes would be further limited to the scope of what they covered in the description they provided for each class during application.
Anyways, point it is that it's in any event really hard to see how having a fairly nondescript domain name with a blank web page could ever be construed as purveying anything in either Nice class 9 or 42.
(Eg, for all we know, such domain name might be referring to some new kind of industrial oil or lubricant, which would be Nice class 4...)
It's also useful to consider that there are contexts where the law can negate the validity of a trademark based on the registrant's lack of actively "practicing" it (including during the period between application and it being granted), or protecting it. So there's an inherent incentive for companies to be a bit "trigger happy" in staking their claim to "practicing" the band as well as acting to protect it. Although it does seem very preemptive in this case.
A similar law exists for property.