OpenAI has petitioned a California federal judge to compel Open Artificial Intelligence Inc. to pay nearly $10 million in attorney fees following a favorable ruling in a trademark infringement case. The request comes after the court determined that Open Artificial Intelligence’s use of the “Open AI” name infringed upon OpenAI’s trademark rights.
In July 2025, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in favor of OpenAI, finding that Open Artificial Intelligence and its founder, Guy Ravine, had intentionally misled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by submitting false claims in their trademark application. The court noted that Ravine applied for the “Open AI” trademark the day after OpenAI’s public launch and subsequently redesigned his inactive website to closely resemble OpenAI’s, actions deemed likely to confuse consumers. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/openai-wins-trademark-lawsuit-over-open-artificial-intelligence-2025-07-22/?utm_source=openai))
OpenAI’s legal team argued that the opposing party’s positions were “extraordinarily weak” and that their legal tactics were unreasonable, justifying the substantial attorney fees. The court had previously granted a preliminary injunction in favor of OpenAI in 2024, further supporting the claim of intentional infringement. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/openai-wins-order-blocking-tech-entrepreneurs-open-ai-website-2024-02-29/?utm_source=openai))
Open Artificial Intelligence has indicated plans to appeal the decision, maintaining that their use of the “Open AI” name was legitimate and did not infringe upon OpenAI’s trademark rights. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/openai-wins-trademark-lawsuit-over-open-artificial-intelligence-2025-07-22/?utm_source=openai))
This case underscores the importance of clear and distinct branding in the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence industry, where the potential for consumer confusion is significant. The outcome may set a precedent for how courts handle similar disputes in the future, particularly concerning the use of common terms in company names within the tech sector.