“CHATGPT” Held Merely Descriptive But Nevertheless Registrable As A Mark

The term GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer,” which software developers understand to refer to a machine learning algorithm that is pre-trained to produce human-like text in response to human prompts.

Is CHATGPT merely descriptive of downloadable and non-downloadable computer software for simulating conversations with a chatbot?

Mere Descriptiveness

A mark is not registrable on the U.S. Principal Register if it is merely descriptive of the goods or services for which registration is sought in that it immediately conveys information as to a feature, quality, or characteristic of them. However, such a mark may be registrable on the Principal Register after it has acquired distinctiveness through public recognition, and it may be registrable on the Supplemental Register even before it has acquired distinctiveness (see our blog post “The U.S. Supplemental Register”). 

On December 22, 2022, OpenAI OpCo, LLC (OpenAI) (by its predecessor OpenAI, L.P.) filed an intent to use application for a registration on the Principal Register of the mark CHATGPT in plain lettering for goods and services relating to chatbot software for simulating conversations. Open AI later amended its application to allege the use of its mark since November 30, 2022. 

The Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that the mark was merely descriptive of the goods and services. OpenAI appealed the descriptiveness refusal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

The TTAB held that the CHAT portion of the mark was merely descriptive of OpenAI’s identifications of goods and services, which included “chatbot software for simulating conversations.” Moreover, OpenAI’s specimen of use explained the goods and services as “conversational.” OpenAI argued that the term CHAT had several meanings including “to talk in an informal or familiar manner” and “to take part in an online discussion in a chat room.” But the TTAB said that such other potential meanings were irrelevant if one meaning was descriptive. In this case, the TTAB found all of them equally descriptive.

Turning to GPT, The TTAB pointed out that the test for a mark’s meaning is what relevant consumers recognize. Many users of OpenAI’s goods and services were sophisticated software developers who would recognize the meaning of GPT. However, the record also demonstrated that the initialism GPT alone, without spelling out its meaning, was commonly used in mainstream dictionaries, acronym finders, and news sources targeted at everyday consumers. The TTAB also said that just because Applicant may have been the first to adopt GPT in a mark did not mean that this term was inherently distinctive. Accordingly, the TTAB held that GPT also was a merely descriptive portion of the mark. 

OpenAI also argued that competitors did not need to use GPT because they had adopted other names such as Perplexity, Copilot, Bard, and Claude. The TTAB rejected this argument because competitive need is not the test for descriptiveness. The TTAB also pointed out that some third parties had adopted GPT as part of their brand names for related goods and services, which supported the conclusion that GPT was descriptive.

Did CHATGPT, which combined these descriptive terms into a unitary mark, convey a different nondescriptive meaning? The TTAB held that, viewed in its entirety, CHATGPT did not present an incongruity or lose its descriptive meaning in the context of OpenAI’s goods and services. 

OpenAI cited five third-party registrations of CHAT followed by an arguably descriptive term for similar goods and services. The TTAB was not persuaded by this evidence, saying once again that it was not bound by prior decisions involving different marks.

Accordingly, the TTAB held that CHATGPT was merely descriptive of the goods and services recited in OpenAI’s application.

Acquired Distinctiveness

On August 9, 2024, after the Examining Attorney’s final descriptiveness refusal, OpenAI made an alternative claim that the mark had acquired distinctiveness. Normally, an acquired distinctiveness claim is made after a mark has been in use for at least five consecutive years. OpenAI had used its CHATGPT mark for less than two years at the time it made this claim. However, it is possible that a mark can acquire distinctiveness quickly. 

OpenAI asserted that its CHATGPT software had been accessed by more than one million users in its first five days, by upwards of tens of million users in its first month, and by more than one hundred million active users in its first two months “making it the fastest-growing consumer application in history.” OpenAI submitted extensive evidence to support its claim including extensive unsolicited media references and instances of intentional copying.

The Examining Attorney accepted OpenAI’s alternative acquired distinctiveness claim, and this issue was not made part of the appeal to the TTAB.

Therefore, despite the finding of mere descriptiveness, the TTAB ordered OpenAI’s CHATGPT application to proceed based on its claim of acquired distinctiveness.

In Re OpenAI OpCo, LLC, Application 97733261 (T.T.A.B. March 4, 2026).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.