Sweeping Summary Judgment Secured for OpenAI in “Open AI” Trademark Dispute

Quinn Emanuel secured a decisive victory for OpenAI, invalidating a fraudulent trademark registration and obtaining a permanent injunction in a hard-fought infringement battle that clears the path for the AI leader’s brand.

            In a comprehensive 19-page order issued on July 21, 2025, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California granted complete summary judgment in favor of Quinn Emanuel’s client, OpenAI. The ruling brings an end to a contentious trademark dispute against Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. and its founder, Guy Ravine. The Court not only permanently enjoined the defendants from using the “Open AI” name but also ordered the USPTO to cancel their trademark registration, ruling that the defendants had procured it through clear and convincing evidence of fraud.

            The dispute centered on a clash over senior rights. The court noted that Ravine purchased the open.ai domain in March 2015 but did not file for trademark protection until December 11, 2015—the very day OpenAI announced its founding. Crucially, the court found a persistent pattern of deception in how Ravine secured this registration. His initial application was rejected by the USPTO in March 2016 because his website merely promised an “announcement soon,” failing to show actual use in commerce. Facing a final deadline to salvage his application, Ravine submitted a substitute specimen depicting a product called “Hub.” Relying on this new submission, he managed to overcome the rejection and ultimately obtained a registration on the USPTO’s Supplemental Register in August 2017.

            However, Quinn Emanuel presented forensic evidence proving this pivotal specimen was a fabrication. The court found that Ravine submitted images with date stamps removed to conceal that his purported products did not exist at the time of his original application. The court also found that Ravine’s claimed “commercial activity” was illusory. The “user comments” visible in the specimen were not from genuine customers but were planted by Ravine’s own employee to create a false appearance of market traction. Based on this “unrebutted evidence,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers held that there was no genuine dispute that Ravine knowingly intended to deceive the USPTO to secure the registration.

            In granting summary judgment on OpenAI’s infringement claims, the court dismantled the defendants' argument that they were the senior user. The Judge ruled that “no reasonable juror could conclude that OpenAI did not acquire secondary meaning by November 2022,” the critical date when the defendants pivoted to launch copycat products named “Boom” and “Ava.” The decision cited extensive evidence of OpenAI’s rapid ascent. By September 2022, DALL·E 2 boasted over 1.5 million active users generating 2 million images daily. Following the release of ChatGPT, the court noted tech journals described the platform as “one of the fastest growing services ever,” achieving over 100 million weekly users. The Court further observed that by March 2022, search engines like Google and Bing exclusively associated the term “OpenAI” with the plaintiff, effectively making it a household name.

            In contrast, the court found the defendants' claims of continuous use legally insufficient. Despite claiming to offer various collaboration tools since 2017, forensic analysis revealed that their “Evolved Collaboration Tool” website had a mere 37 visitors in the United States. Even worse, the court noted that their “Decentralized” website had only about 10 “unique editors” over a five-year period—many of which were exposed as test accounts or fake registrants with email addresses such as “mike@mike.com.” The court concluded that the defendants had almost no genuine commercial footprint before pivoting to infringe on OpenAI’s brand.

            Finding that the defendants’ conduct caused actual consumer confusion, Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued a sweeping permanent injunction. The order prohibits Ravine and his affiliates from using “Open AI,” “open.ai,” or any colorable imitation in connection with AI products, services, or social media handles. 

            This victory not only vindicates OpenAI’s intellectual property rights but also eliminates a source of significant marketplace confusion, allowing the company to continue its innovation without the burden of fraudulent legal challenges.