This is the first trade mark opposition case in Singapore involving “CHATGPT.”
The case arose after Porolis Technologies, a Singapore AI company, applied to register the trade mark “GemGPT” for various services ranging from artificial intelligence consultancy services to gemstone authentication services. OpenAI subsequently opposed the application, relying on its earlier “CHATGPT” trade mark and its trade marks for numbered GPT models, such as “GPT-3” and “GPT-4”. Its central argument was that because of the common “GPT” element, consumers would be likely to mistake services offered under “GemGPT” as those of OpenAI or a business connected to it.
OpenAI raised five grounds of opposition: (1) similarity between “GemGPT” and its earlier trade marks, coupled with identical services, giving rise to a likelihood of confusion; (2) use of “GemGPT” indicating a connection with OpenAI likely to damage its interests as the proprietor of well-known trade marks; (3) unfair dilution of the distinctive character of its trade marks well known to the public at large in Singapore; (4) passing off; and (5) bad faith.
IPOS found only a marginal degree of similarity between “GemGPT” and OpenAI’s earlier marks. Although the parties’ services were identical to an extent, IPOS nevertheless found no likelihood of confusion. At the relevant date of 22 May 2023, “GPT”, the shared element, was not shown to indicate trade origin and would instead have been understood as referring to a type of AI technology. For substantially similar reasons, IPOS found no relevant connection with OpenAI under the well-known-mark ground and no misrepresentation under passing off.
It was also found that the distinctiveness of “CHATGPT” lay in the combination of “CHAT” and “GPT”, rather than “GPT” alone. Therefore, the presence of “GPT” in “GemGPT” was insufficient to create the mental link with CHATGPT required for dilution.
Finally, Porolis’s awareness of ChatGPT and the timing of its application did not establish bad faith. Its use of “GPT” to refer to a type of AI technology was not, in itself, commercially unacceptable. IPOS therefore dismissed the opposition on all five grounds.
The full decision is available here: https://www.ipos.gov.sg/
