The General Court of the European Union refused to let OpenAI register its own name as a trademark. The reasoning applies just the same in Argentina: a name that describes what you do does not distinguish anything, and that is why it cannot be registered.
You can call your product “something AI”, but you will struggle to register it as a trademark if the name does no more than describe what the product does. That is exactly what happened to the company most closely associated with artificial intelligence on the planet: on 15 July 2026, the General Court of the European Union upheld the refusal of the sign “OPENAI” as an EU trademark for AI goods and services. It did not lose because a competitor opposed it, or because it filed too late: it lost because the name itself describes the thing instead of identifying who offers it. If you are about to launch a technology venture in Argentina, the lesson carries across almost unchanged.
Key point: a trademark exists to distinguish your product from everyone else’s. If the name you have chosen simply tells people what it does, what it is made of or what it is for, it does not distinguish: it describes. And descriptive matter cannot be monopolised, because every one of your competitors needs those same words.
What the EU General Court decided
In case T-555/25, OpenAI appealed the refusal by the EUIPO — the European Union trademark office — to register “OPENAI” in classes 9, 42 and 45, and partly in class 38: essentially software, scientific and technological services, and security and identity verification services. The Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the sign is descriptive. The reasoning was straightforward: English-speaking consumers recognise the two components of the sign even when written without a space or a hyphen, and the combination allows at least three descriptive readings — freely accessible AI, open-source AI, and transparent or explainable AI. It is enough that a single one of those readings describes the goods for registration to be blocked.
Why the outcome would be much the same in Argentina
You do not need to invoke European law to get to the same place. Section 2 of Trademark Act 22,362 provides that names, words and signs which constitute the necessary or customary designation of the goods or services, or which describe their nature, function, qualities or other characteristics, are neither considered trademarks nor registrable. It is an absolute ground for refusal: it does not depend on anyone opposing the application — it is a defect in the sign itself.
The underlying logic is one of fair competition: if a single company were allowed to own the expression “open AI” for software, no one else could describe their own product using the natural words of the sector.
“But everyone knows OpenAI”: why fame is not always enough
That is the obvious objection, and it has a technical name: distinctiveness acquired through use, or secondary meaning. The idea is that a sign that is inherently weak can still become a trademark if, through intensive use, the public ends up associating it with a single commercial origin. That route exists in Europe and OpenAI relied on its reputation, but the Court made clear that this assessment does not belong inside the examination of descriptiveness: it will be taken up separately once the decision becomes final, and the judgment does not prejudge the outcome.
In Argentina the ground is even less certain: Act 22,362 does not regulate acquired distinctiveness expressly, and the courts have accepted it in isolated cases, on a restrictive view. Translated into business decisions: betting on “I’ll pick a descriptive name and make it famous later” is the most expensive and least predictable strategy available.
The Argentine angle: descriptiveness is one of the few things the INPI still checks
Resolution P-583/2025 reversed the order of the procedure before the INPI, Argentina’s trademark and patent office: applications are now examined first and published afterwards. More importantly, it narrowed ex officio examination down to the absolute grounds for refusal: public order, morality, generic designations and signs lacking distinctive character. Likelihood of confusion with earlier private marks fell outside that scope, and now depends on each owner’s own watch and opposition.
Read the other way round, that is a fairly concrete warning. The INPI has stopped checking whether your mark clashes with someone else’s, but it still checks — and now before publication — whether it is generic or lacks the capacity to distinguish. A name along the lines of “something AI” falls squarely into the category the office kept under its control. The refusal therefore arrives early: you lose the fee, the time and the priority date on a name you may already have invested in through design, domains and packaging.
A concrete example
Picture a Córdoba startup that develops practice management software for law firms — already incorporated, let us say, as an SAS — and calls the product “LegalIA”. The name is convenient: it explains the product in a second. But it also describes it completely — legal service plus artificial intelligence — and that is precisely its weakness. Even if the company managed to register it together with a logo, protection would attach to the composite sign as a whole, and it could not stop a competitor from trading as “IA Legal”. A coined or suggestive name, by contrast, would give it a genuine, defensible exclusive right for the ten years of the registration.
How to choose a name that can actually be registered
It helps to think of a scale. Coined names — invented ones — are the strongest. Next come arbitrary names: ordinary words applied to something they have no connection with. Then suggestive names, which hint at a benefit without describing it, and which are usually the sweet spot between marketing and protection. At the bottom sit descriptive and generic names. Choosing from the upper end of the scale and running a proper clearance search before filing resolves most problems before they exist.
Frequently asked questions
Can I use “AI” in my product name even if I cannot register it?
Yes. Using a descriptive name is not prohibited; what you do not get is exclusivity. You can trade under it, but you will not be able to stop someone else from using something very similar.
What if I add a logo?
A composite mark — name plus design — can be registered even where the word element is weak, but protection attaches to the whole. It is a partial solution: it covers your visual identity, not the name.
What happens if I have already filed a descriptive mark?
It may be objected to during examination or, if it does proceed to registration, remain exposed to a later invalidity action. It is worth reviewing early and, if need be, reinforcing the strategy with a stronger alternative sign.
Co-founder of Herrera & Flamenco Abogados, he works on intellectual property matters, including trademarks, copyright and new technologies, with particular attention to protecting intangible assets and to the strategic use of these tools in businesses and creative projects.
About to launch a product and still undecided on the name?
We are industrial property agents registered before the INPI. We help you assess whether your mark is registrable, run the clearance search and handle the whole filing, so that your project’s name becomes an asset rather than a label.
2 Comments