In a closely watched decision, an Australian trade mark opposition has finally shed light on whether ‘GPT’ is a protectable brand or a free-to-use descriptive term in the rapidly evolving AI and automation space.
In the last few years, we’ve seen many businesses incorporating GPT into brands used in connection with AI tools and automation software. In Australia, the jury has been out on whether this use is permissible, begging the question: Has GPT become a descriptive term that is free to use or can OpenAI rely on its unregistered rights to prevent third parties from adopting the acronym? We finally got some answers in this recent trade mark opposition which involved ChatGPT/GPT versus IMMIGPT.
OpenAI OpCo LLC v Realoz International Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 141 (21 July 2025)
OpenAI opposed Realoz International Pty Ltd’s, Australian trade mark application for IMMIGPT, which is used in connection with immigration advisory services. OpenAI argued that the marks ChatGPT and GPT have been extensively used in Australia, acquiring a significant reputation both here and internationally. Because of that reputation use of IMMIGPT would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
Realoz defended the opposition, arguing that GPT is a generic term that is widely used in the machine learning and natural language processing fields to describe a specific type of model architecture. In addition, Realoz used the following disclaimer in its website: “This App is powered by Dify and developed by RealOZ Education and Migration. We are not affiliated, associated, authorised, endorsed by, or in any way officially connected with OpenAI, or any of its subsidiaries or its affiliates”. In its evidence, Realoz explained that it includes the disclaimer ‘to ensure transparency and avoid any potential confusion with OpenAI’.
The Delegate found that despite the relatively short period of use of ChatGPT before the IMMIGPT trade mark was filed, she was satisfied that OpenAI has demonstrated the requisite reputation at that time. The evidence shows there was swift adoption of ChatGPT globally and in Australia by developers, businesses and individuals using it in all aspects of life and business. Even those people who had not yet tried ChatGPT would undoubtedly have heard about it. The Delegate was further satisfied that OpenAI’s GPT mark had a reputation in Australia for software and AI-related goods and services.
OpenAI also had to demonstrate a causal connection between the reputation of its marks and the likelihood that Realoz’s use of IMMIGPT would deceive or cause confusion. Despite OpenAI not providing immigration services, the Delegate concluded that Australian consumers understand that ChatGPT has wide application in diverse industries. She found that the most logical explanation for ‘-GPT’ in IMMIGPT is to indicate to consumers that the provision of Realoz’s services involves the use of AI in a similar manner to ChatGPT. Ultimately, the Delegate was satisfied that a significant number of members of the public would recognise a connection between IMMIGPT and GPT/ChatGPT as a result of the reputation in those marks and would be likely to be deceived or confused. Clearly, the website disclaimer was unpersuasive also.
OpenAI was successful in the opposition and the Delegate refused to register the IMMIGPT trade mark.
What does this mean for Australian businesses?
This decision serves as a warning to businesses naming AI tools and related software. OpenAI have had mixed success relying on similar arguments internationally, so it will be interesting to see if Realoz appeals the decision and if not whether OpenAI will start chasing similar uses of GPT in Australia. As always, context is everything, so if you need specific advice on your brands in the AI space, please reach out to Source for tailored IP advice relevant to your industry and business.
