OpenAI Moves for Preliminary Injunction vs. Alleged Infringer in Copyright Case
OpenAI moved the court for a preliminary injunction against Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc., enjoining the company and its officers, employees and agents from any and all development, production, promotion, sale and distribution of products or services that use the name “‘OpenAI,’ or any confusingly similar variant, including ‘Open AI’” said its Friday motion (docket 4:23-cv-03918) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
OpenAI will be “irreparably harmed” if defendants aren’t enjoined from using the infringing mark, said the motion. The plaintiff asserts it's likely to succeed on the merits of its claims, that the balance of hardships weighs in its favor, and that the public interest “supports issuing a preliminary injunction.”
Defendants Open Artificial Intelligence and Guy Ravine, identified in the complaint as its president, “are attempting to use a virtually identical mark, 'Open AI,'" which differs from OpenAI by only a space between “Open” and “AI,” to “falsely associate themselves with OpenAI,” said the motion: “Inevitably, this causes consumer confusion.” OpenAI seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent the alleged infringement from “irreparably harming OpenAI and its brand and goodwill.”
As the senior user, OpenAI has “valid and protectable rights” in the OpenAI mark, which the marketplace “strongly associates” with its products and services, the motion said. Ravine’s application to register the “confusingly similar” mark was a “deliberate attempt to exploit OpenAI’s success and reputation,” it said. Defendants’ “misappropriation of the goodwill that OpenAI has created in its hard-earned technological advancements," and the resulting confusion the defendants caused about the source and affiliation of OpenAI’s products and services, "must be stopped,” it said.
Continued use of the infringing mark will “irreparably harm” plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill, said the motion. Defendants are actively harming OpenAI’s reputation and goodwill by displaying the infringing mark on their website “alongside offensive, graphic, and sexually explicit content -- the same type of content that OpenAI works to prevent from appearing on its own website and in its products,” it said.
Ravine and Open Artificial Intelligence have never made “any bona fide use” of the infringing mark in offering their own services, said the motion, saying neither the public interest nor equity favors allowing them to misappropriate the OpenAI mark, “leverage for themselves OpenAI’s goodwill, or fraudulently divert public interest in and demand for OpenAI’s products and services.”
Defendants also used the infringing mark to falsely associate themselves and their domain name with OpenAI and its products, alleged the motion, noting Ravine’s LinkedIn profile asserts he's the “Originator” of “OpenAI” to “mirror the most popular OpenAI subdomains." Defendants also redesigned their website several times to closely reflect OpenAI’s website design, the motion asserted.
Defendants’ “scheme to free ride” on OpenAI’s efforts caused “actual confusion,” said the motion. Visitors to defendants’ website have typed terms referring to OpenAI’s products and services, such as chatgpt, into their website, "clearly demonstrating their confusion,” it said. Social media users posted about their confusion between the two companies, and others in the media and public, “including sophisticated publishers,” have “similarly been confused,” it said. Articles for Forbes, The Telegraph and GoDaddy “mistakenly link to Defendants’ domain name, https://open.ai, when discussing OpenAI and its services,” it said.