E’ esatta la conferma di non registrabilità in UE del marchio in oggetto da parte di Trib UE 15.07.2026, T-555/25, Open AI inc v. EUIPO.
Basta che uno solo dei significati sia descrittivo, dice il Trib.
E comunque il segno è descrittivo, non producendo nessun significato ulteriore rispetto a quello prodotto dalla somma dei significati delle due componenti singolarmente considerate (Open ; AI).
<< 37 In the present case, having regard to the fact that the terms ‘open’ and ‘AI’ are easily and immediately recognisable, that the expression ‘open AI’ complies with the grammatical rules of English – the adjective preceding the noun – and that that expression does not contain any unusual element in its syntax, it must be held that that expression does not create, on the part of the relevant public, an impression which is sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere juxtaposition of its constituent elements so that the expression in question is more than a sum of its parts. That public may understand the term ‘OPENAI’ as meaning either accessible or unrestricted artificial intelligence, based on open source principles, or even one that is transparent or explainable.
38 Furthermore, as the Board of Appeal correctly pointed out, the fact that the terms ‘open’ and ‘ai’ are joined without space cannot reinforce its fanciful nature. In that regard, it should be noted that the absence of a hyphen or space between the two words composing a sign does not amount to evidence of any creative aspect capable of rendering that sign non-descriptive (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 November 2008, Duro Sweden v OHIM (EASYCOVER), T‑346/07, not published, EU:T:2008:496, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited).
39 Moreover, it is of little consequence that the expression ‘open AI’ has no lexical meaning and does not constitute a recognised expression in English. The mark applied for is not required to appear in a dictionary or to be used in everyday language in order for it to be refused registration under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 (see, to that effect, judgments of 6 March 2015, Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet), T‑513/13, not published, EU:T:2015:140, paragraph 42, and of 13 July 2022, Brand Energy Holdings v EUIPO (RAPIDGUARD), T‑573/21, not published, EU:T:2022:450, paragraph 40).
40 It must be concluded that, taken as a whole, the sign applied for cannot create, on the part of the relevant public, an impression sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere juxtaposition of the words of which it is composed to alter its meaning or scope>>