{"id":103112,"date":"2026-07-15T13:22:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-15T12:22:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=103112"},"modified":"2026-07-15T13:32:16","modified_gmt":"2026-07-15T12:32:16","slug":"rejection-of-a-descriptive-trademark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/","title":{"rendered":"Can the name OPENAI be registered as a European trademark?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The U.S. company OpenAI, Inc. is attempting to register the word \u201cOPENAI\u201d as a European Union trademark, but the General Court of the European Union has (for now) blocked that attempt. In its ruling of July 15, 2026 (T-555\/25<\/a>) the General Court ruled that, for the relevant audience, OPENAI simply describes \u201cfreely accessible artificial intelligence\u201d and therefore cannot constitute a valid word mark. Notably, the OpenAI logo\u2014which includes the word\u2014is registered as a figurative mark. Registration of the word itself is not definitively ruled out, but OpenAI will have to pursue a different path.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On June 15, 2023, OpenAI filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to register the word mark OPENAI as a Union trademark. Following a restriction during the proceedings, the application covered goods and services in Classes 9, 38, 42, and 45, specifically software, development services, cloud applications, and identity verification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EUIPO examiner partially rejected the application. The Board of Appeal upheld that rejection. OpenAI then brought the matter before the General Court of the European Union and sought to have that decision set aside. It raised three grounds for appeal: infringement of the ground for refusal regarding descriptive signs, infringement of the ground regarding signs lacking distinctive character, and infringement of the principles of equality and good administration, because the EUIPO had accepted similar trademarks in the past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The General Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety and ordered OpenAI to pay the costs. The core of the reasoning revolves around the question of whether \u201cOPENAI\u201d is descriptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of the Union Trademark Regulation<\/a> (Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001, the EUTMR). That provision prohibits the registration of marks consisting exclusively of indications that may serve, in trade, to designate a characteristic of the goods or services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The General Court first examined how the relevant public\u2014the English-speaking public in the Union\u2014understands the mark. Even without a hyphen or space, that public recognizes the two elements \u201copen\u201d and \u201cAI.\u201d According to the General Court, \u201cAI\u201d is generally known as the abbreviation for \u201cartificial intelligence.\u201d The word \u201copen,\u201d according to the General Court, can have multiple meanings, but in the context of IT goods and services, it can be understood to mean \u201cfreely available\u201d or \u201cfreely accessible.\u201d Taken together, OPENAI thus refers to accessible, unrestricted, or open-source-based artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The General Court then examined whether that sign describes a characteristic of the goods and services in question. The answer was yes: all software and services in Classes 9, 42, and 45 can be powered by or based on freely accessible artificial intelligence. According to the General Court, the fact that those goods and services may also serve other purposes does not alter this conclusion. It is sufficient that one of the possible uses of the goods and services coincides with the meaning of the sign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since a single absolute ground for refusal is sufficient to bar registration, the General Court no longer needed to examine the second ground of appeal (lack of distinctiveness). The third ground of appeal also failed: prior registrations by EUIPO or by foreign trademark offices are not binding on the General Court, as the validity of a Union trademark is assessed exclusively under the Union Trademark Regulation itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber had explicitly stated that, once the decision becomes final, the proceedings will resume to examine OpenAI\u2019s alternative claim regarding acquired distinctiveness (Article 7(3) of the EUTMR). That part of the case is therefore still pending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Why OpenAI\u2019s biggest asset\u2014its name recognition\u2014doesn\u2019t quite count here<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The most striking aspect of this ruling is what the General Court deliberately overlooks: the enormous recognition of the name \u201cOpenAI.\u201d It seems intuitively strange that a name so strongly associated by the general public with the company behind ChatGPT would nevertheless be rejected as descriptive. The explanation lies in a sharp distinction that trademark law<\/a> draws between two very different questions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first question is whether a sign is inherently capable of serving as a trademark. This is assessed based on the intrinsic characteristics of the sign itself, regardless of how it is used in practice. The actual use of the name is not a factor in this assessment. The General Court states this explicitly: the argument that the sign enjoys recognition and reputation among consumers is not relevant under Article 7(1)(c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation, because that provision concerns only the intrinsic characteristics of the sign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second question\u2014whether the public has since come to view the name as an indication of origin\u2014falls under the integration provisions of Article 7, paragraph 3, of the EUTMR. That is precisely why the Board of Appeals kept that aspect separate. OpenAI is therefore not losing because its name is too obscure, but because it has not yet knocked on the right door. The name recognition that currently seems to work against the application will, in the next phase, become precisely the argument on which everything hinges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the logo is accepted but the word itself is not<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

This is the most important lesson to be learned from this case. While the word \u201cOPENAI\u201d is not registered, the OpenAI logo\u2014which features the word \u201cOpenAI\u201d as a figurative mark\u2014is registered (EU trademark 018674416, registered on June 5, 2023, for classes 9 and 42<\/a>). This may seem contradictory, but it follows logically from the same rule. A pure word mark protects only the meaning of the word, and that meaning is descriptive in this case. A figurative mark protects the specific graphic design, and the stylized logo adds an element that is distinct from the descriptive meaning. As a result, the sign no longer consists \u201cexclusively\u201d of a descriptive indication, as required by the ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(c) of the EUTMR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The downside is that this protection is limited. It covers the design, not the text itself. A competitor who uses the term \u201copen AI\u201d descriptively without adopting the logo falls outside the scope of that trademark. Anyone who wants to monopolize their trademark as text will therefore find a purely figurative registration of little use. It is interesting to note, by the way, that the registration extract for this trademark explicitly states that no acquired distinctiveness was invoked. The design was sufficient in and of itself, without the need for acquired distinctiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An old debate about compound words, settled once again<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

OpenAI tried to salvage what it could with a classic argument: \u201cOPENAI\u201d is written as a single word, without a space, and is therefore a coined term (a neologism) that is more than the sum of \u201copen\u201d and \u201cAI.\u201d That argument is based on a well-known earlier case, Baby-Dry, in which the Court of Justice accepted that an unusual combination could indeed be distinctive (ECJ, September 20, 2001, C-383\/99 P, \u2018Baby-Dry\u2019<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The General Court rejects this argument, thereby following the stricter line that the Court of Justice has maintained since the Postkantoor and Biomild rulings (ECJ, February 12, 2004, C-363\/99, \u2018KPN\/BMB\u2019 (\u2018Postkantoor\u2019)<\/a>; ECJ, February 12, 2004, C-265\/00, \u2018Campina v. BMB\u2019 (\u2018Biomild\u2019)<\/a>). According to that reasoning, a combination of descriptive words remains descriptive unless, due to its unusual nature, it creates an impression that is sufficiently distinct from the mere sum of its parts. According to the General Court, \u201cOpen AI\u201d does not meet this criterion: the adjective precedes the noun, as prescribed by English grammar, and there is nothing unusual about the combination. The absence of a space or hyphen does not alter this. The omission of a space between two words does not, in and of itself, constitute a creative element that renders a sign distinctive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equally important is the confirmation of a second established rule: a mark must be refused as soon as one of its possible meanings describes a characteristic of the goods (Court of Justice, October 23, 2003, Case C-191\/01 P, \u2018OHIM v. Wrigley\u2019 (\u2018Doublemint\u2019)<\/a>). OpenAI pointed out that \u201copen\u201d has countless meanings, but that doesn\u2019t help: it is sufficient that one of them\u2014\u201cfreely accessible\u201d\u2014describes the services. In trademark law, therefore, the argument that a word is multifaceted works against the applicant rather than helping them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not an isolated case, but a trend against OpenAI\u2019s descriptive characters<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

This ruling does not stand alone. In four decisions by the EUIPO\u2019s Cancellation Division dated October 17, 2025 (C 64 174 for GPT, C 64 301 for GPT-3, C 64 300 for GPT-4, and C 64 175 for GPT-5), the already registered word marks GPT, GPT-3, and GPT-4 were declared wholly invalid, and GPT-5 was declared partially invalid, in each case on the grounds of descriptiveness and lack of distinctiveness, with the question of acquisition of distinctiveness deferred until those decisions become final. The same pattern is evident in the OPENAI case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone who compares the two cases side by side will see a consistent stance: the EUIPO refuses to allow OpenAI to monopolize terms that describe the underlying technology, whether that refers to its function (GPT as \u201cgenerative pre-trained transformer\u201d) or its nature (open AI). The message for the industry is that a trademark must indicate commercial origin, not the technology itself. Being the first to bring a technology to market does not automatically grant exclusive rights to the term the market uses to refer to that technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, what does this mean?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The ruling is particularly instructive for companies\u2014and their advisors\u2014who are selecting a brand in technology-sensitive sectors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone who builds a name using common, descriptive elements (such as \u201csmart,\u201d \u201ccloud,\u201d \u201ccyber,\u201d \u201cAI,\u201d \u201copen\u201d), runs a real risk that the EUIPO will reject that name as descriptive, even if the combination feels fresh or unique. Merging two words without a space is not a reliable way to avoid this ground for refusal. It is better to choose a sign that adds a genuine conceptual or grammatical twist, or that contains a clearly distinctive element in addition to the descriptive words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An interim solution is a logo, as OpenAI demonstrates with its logo. The graphic design can tip the scales in favor of a word that is descriptive in and of itself. Keep in mind, however, that this protection is limited to the design and does not extend to the meaning of the word. For those who want to protect the text itself, a strong, non-descriptive word mark remains the only robust option.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A final lesson concerns the evidence strategy for those who still wish to register a descriptive term. Fame and reputation are not useless, but they must be placed in the correct section of the filing. As long as the discussion regarding the intrinsic character of the mark is ongoing, fame is not taken into account. It only becomes relevant in the course of establishing acquired distinctiveness, and must be substantiated there with concrete data (market share, duration of use, advertising efforts, recognition surveys), not merely as a general reputation. Legally, reputation is not the same as established distinctiveness. The greatest challenge for OpenAI in that phase is territorial: for a Union trademark, established use must be demonstrated throughout the entire part of the Union where the mark was descriptive from the outset\u2014in this case, the entire English-speaking public and potentially beyond (Court of Justice of the European Union, July 25, 2018, C-84\/17 P, \u2018Nestl\u00e9 v. Mondelez\u2019<\/a>). The evidence does not have to be provided separately for each member state, but it also cannot be limited to just a handful of countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Why can't a globally recognized name like OpenAI become a European Union trademark?<\/strong>
This is because, in the initial assessment, the judge considers only the meaning of the mark itself, not how well-known it is. To an English-speaking audience, OPENAI simply describes \u201cfreely accessible artificial intelligence,\u201d and no company can claim exclusive rights to descriptive terms. Fame can only play a role in a separate phase\u2014that of acquired distinctiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why is the OpenAI logo registered as a trademark, but the word itself is not?<\/strong>
A logo protects the graphic design, not just the wording. The stylized logo adds a distinctive element, meaning the symbol is no longer purely descriptive. However, that protection is more limited: it covers the design, not the words \u201copen AI\u201d as text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is acquired distinctiveness of a trademark?<\/strong>
Acquiring distinctiveness means that a mark that was originally descriptive or non-distinctive has, through intensive use, acquired distinctiveness, such that the public now recognizes it as the name of a specific company. If this evidence is successful, the mark may still be registered pursuant to Article 7(3) of the EUTMR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

With this ruling, the General Court reaffirms two firmly established principles: a sign is descriptive as soon as one of its meanings indicates a characteristic of the goods, and combining descriptive words does not save the application. The fact that OpenAI did manage to secure protection for its logo but not for the word itself demonstrates just how fine the line is between descriptive and distinctive. For the word mark, this is not the end of the road, but a referral to the acquisition of distinctiveness track, where the name\u2019s reputation suddenly takes center stage. The real test there will be the territorial scope of the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\n
Are you considering registering a trademark, or has your application been rejected on the grounds of descriptive character or lack of distinctiveness? Our lawyers specializing in intellectual property are happy to assist you with a tailored trademark registration strategy, opposition, or registration application. Please feel free to contact us.<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

De Amerikaanse onderneming OpenAI, Inc. probeert het woord OPENAI als Uniemerk te registreren, maar het Gerecht van de Europese Unie zet daar (voorlopig) een streep door. In zijn arrest van 15 juli 2026 (T-555\/25) oordeelt het Gerecht dat OPENAI voor het relevante publiek gewoon “vrij toegankelijke kunstmatige intelligentie” beschrijft, en dus geen geldig woordmerk kan […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":103113,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[82],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103112","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-merkenrecht"],"yoast_head":"\nWanneer is een merk te beschrijvend? | ICT Rechtswijzer<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Waarom weigert het EUIPO het woordmerk OPENAI maar niet het logo? Ontdek wat dit leert over beschrijvende merken en inburgering.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/rejection-of-a-descriptive-trademark\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kan de naam OPENAI als Europees merk worden ingeschreven?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Waarom weigert het EUIPO het woordmerk OPENAI maar niet het logo? Ontdek wat dit leert over beschrijvende merken en inburgering.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/rejection-of-a-descriptive-trademark\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-15T12:22:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-15T12:32:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-andrew-15863044-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\"},\"headline\":\"Kan de naam OPENAI als Europees merk worden ingeschreven?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-15T12:22:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-15T12:32:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2056,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/pexels-andrew-15863044-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Merkenrecht\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/\",\"name\":\"Wanneer is een merk te beschrijvend? | ICT Rechtswijzer\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/pexels-andrew-15863044-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-15T12:22:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-15T12:32:16+00:00\",\"description\":\"Waarom weigert het EUIPO het woordmerk OPENAI maar niet het logo? Ontdek wat dit leert over beschrijvende merken en inburgering.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/pexels-andrew-15863044-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/pexels-andrew-15863044-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kan de naam OPENAI als Europees merk worden ingeschreven?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\",\"description\":\"Advocaten in IP, AI, IT, privacy & media\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"width\":638,\"height\":479,\"caption\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/jorisdeene\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\",\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Joris Deene\"},\"description\":\"Advocaat-partner bij Everest Advocaten\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/joris-deene-5144096\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/en\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"When Is a Trademark Too Descriptive? | ICT Legal Guide","description":"Why does the EUIPO refuse to register the word mark \u201cOPENAI\u201d but not the logo? Find out what this tells us about descriptive marks and acquisition of distinctiveness.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/rejection-of-a-descriptive-trademark\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kan de naam OPENAI als Europees merk worden ingeschreven?","og_description":"Waarom weigert het EUIPO het woordmerk OPENAI maar niet het logo? Ontdek wat dit leert over beschrijvende merken en inburgering.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/rejection-of-a-descriptive-trademark\/","og_site_name":"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat","article_published_time":"2026-07-15T12:22:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-15T12:32:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1707,"url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-andrew-15863044-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Joris Deene","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Joris Deene","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/"},"author":{"name":"Joris Deene","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685"},"headline":"Kan de naam OPENAI als Europees merk worden ingeschreven?","datePublished":"2026-07-15T12:22:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-15T12:32:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/"},"wordCount":2056,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-andrew-15863044-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["Merkenrecht"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/","name":"When Is a Trademark Too Descriptive? | ICT Legal Guide","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-andrew-15863044-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-15T12:22:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-15T12:32:16+00:00","description":"Why does the EUIPO refuse to register the word mark \u201cOPENAI\u201d but not the logo? Find out what this tells us about descriptive marks and acquisition of distinctiveness.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-andrew-15863044-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-andrew-15863044-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1707},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/beschrijvend-merk-weigering\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kan de naam OPENAI als Europees merk worden ingeschreven?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","name":"ICT Lawyer","description":"Lawyers in IP, AI, IT, privacy & media","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization","name":"ICT Lawyer","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","width":638,"height":479,"caption":"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/jorisdeene\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685","name":"Joris Deene","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Joris Deene"},"description":"Attorney-partner at Everest Attorneys","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/joris-deene-5144096\/"],"url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103112","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103112"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103112\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":103122,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103112\/revisions\/103122"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/103113"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}