121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1500 Coral Gables, FL 33134
+1 (305) 489 1901
Our office hour: Mon - Fri
09.00am - 05.00pm
On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a decision in In re OpenAI OpCo, LLC, addressing whether the mark CHATGPT can be registered as a trademark in the United States.
The Board agreed with the USPTO that “CHATGPT” is descriptive, meaning the name directly describes the technology behind the product. However, the application can still move forward because OpenAI showed the mark has acquired distinctiveness through use in the marketplace.
OpenAI applied to register CHATGPT for software and services related to artificial intelligence, including:
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused the application because the name CHATGPT was considered “merely descriptive.”
Under trademark law, a term cannot be registered on the Principal Register if it simply describes a feature or function of the product.
How the TTAB Analyzed the Name
The Board broke the mark into two parts:
The Board found that “chat” directly describes the conversational function of chatbot software. The evidence showed that chatbots are designed to “chat” or communicate with users through messages or dialogue.
Because OpenAI’s software allows users to interact conversationally, the word CHAT immediately describes how the technology works.
The Board also found that GPT is widely recognized as an abbreviation for “Generative Pre-Trained Transformer,” a type of machine-learning model used to generate human-like text.
Evidence included dictionary definitions, news articles, and industry publications showing the term is commonly used to describe the underlying AI model.
When combined, the Board concluded that CHATGPT simply describes a chatbot powered by a generative pre-trained transformer model.
Because the two descriptive terms retain their meaning when combined, the full mark does not create a unique or unexpected meaning.
Although the Board agreed the mark is descriptive, OpenAI had already claimed acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).
This means the company argued that, through extensive public use and recognition, consumers now associate CHATGPT specifically with OpenAI.
The Board affirmed the descriptiveness refusal but allowed the application to proceed based on acquired distinctiveness.
This case highlights an important point in trademark law:
For technology companies—especially in fast-moving AI markets—choosing a name that describes the technology may make marketing easier, but it can also make trademark protection more difficult. If you are developing a new brand or product name, our trademark team can help you evaluate risks, secure protection, and build a stronger brand strategy. Contact us to discuss your trademark needs. ⚖️
