Hundreds of companies riding on the all-access AI wagon have been using GPT in their products for the past three years. Hundreds more have emerged or created new brands using not just the technology, but also now part of the vernacular ChatGPT, as well as the GPT, GPT3, and GPT4 acronyms in their names. OpenAI now wants to put an end to that.
The company that created and owns these large language models and the GPT mark, as shown on the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) site, has begun policing use of these acronyms in brands. Whether the acronym in question is part of a company name or a product brand, OpenAI is sending messages via a third party to those that are not following its branding guidelines.
The message says that “Stating ‘GPT’ is inaccurate and may imply a partnership or endorsement where there isn’t one.” The messages do not have a litigious “cease and desist” tone and are rather diplomatic, but they still make it clear that companies cannot use the name and must apply the company’s branding guidelines. However, the message also gives companies just days to respond and comply.
Many are unaware and continue buying those coveted high-priced domains and spending money registering company names with “GPT” in them.
Not again 🥲
Looks like I will have to rebrand https://t.co/QbPKIdGqOc to something else…
The strange thing is I did not even get this email from @OpenAI‘s official domain.
Just some random domain called brandshield… pic.twitter.com/TMLU4Z1QNW
— Bhanu Teja P 🪶 (@pbteja1998) May 4, 2023
As several startups make launch announcements in social media, LSPs, language tech companies, and language industry founders would be well advised to refrain from using “GPT” in company or product names. Although these names sound good, there can be no LocalizeGPT, GPTTranslate, ChatGPT-Translate, TranscreateGPT, etc.
OpenAI makes it clear that “We do not permit the use of OpenAI models or ‘GPT’ in product or app names because it confuses end users.” This is repeated in the message companies are now receiving, and both the message and website provide examples of what is acceptable and what is not.