From “cameo” to “io,” the tech giant faces a wave of trademark lawsuits that highlight a deeper irony about the nature of generative AI.
- A Pattern of Infringement: OpenAI faces mounting legal challenges for naming its products after existing trademarks, most recently clashing with the celebrity video app Cameo and the hardware company iyO.
- The “Existential” Battle: Cameo CEO Steven Galanis views OpenAI’s use of his company’s name not just as a legal issue, but as a threat that dilutes his brand’s meaning from “authentic connections” to “AI slop.”
- The Irony of Imitation: Critics argue that OpenAI’s derivative naming strategy mirrors the technology itself—generative AI is built on mimicking patterns in data rather than achieving true creative originality.
In September, OpenAI released a powerful new feature within Sora, its application designed for sharing AI-generated videos in a TikTok-style feed. The feature allowed users to generate a digital likeness of themselves to create personalized “deepfake” videos. OpenAI dubbed this feature “cameo.” Driven by this standout capability, Sora quickly rocketed to the top of Apple’s iOS download charts.
However, the name struck a nerve—and a legal tripwire—with the existing app Cameo, a platform famous for allowing fans to pay celebrities for personalized video messages. The result was a swift trademark lawsuit. Following a temporary restraining order issued by US District Judge Eumi K. Lee, OpenAI was forced to scrub the “cameo” branding from its app. In the interim, the feature has been renamed “characters.”
While OpenAI has complied, stating they are “taking steps” to update the app code—a process they argued in an opposition brief could take up to three weeks—the legal battle is far from over. A hearing scheduled for December 19 will determine if the ban on the name sticks permanently.
An Existential Threat to Branding
For Steven Galanis, the CEO of Cameo, this is more than a simple dispute over terminology; he describes it as an “existential” battle. Galanis expressed frustration, noting that discussions between the two companies have been “pretty nonexistent.”
“They clearly knew Cameo existed. They knew we had trademarks on it,” Galanis stated. “They chose the name anyway.”
The concern for the original Cameo platform is the dilution of its brand identity. For eight years, the company has built a reputation based on real, human interaction. Galanis fears that if OpenAI is allowed to co-opt the name, the public perception of a “cameo” will shift from “authentic personalized connections” to what he refers to as “AI slop.” Furthermore, he claims the overlapping nomenclature is already damaging Cameo’s visibility in Google search results.
OpenAI, for its part, remains defiant regarding the trademark itself. “We disagree with the complaint’s assertion that anyone can claim exclusive ownership over the word ‘cameo,’ and we look forward to continuing to make our case to the court,” said an OpenAI spokesperson.
A Derivative Vibe: The “io” Incident
This branding struggle is not an isolated incident for the AI giant. It speaks to a broader perspective on how OpenAI approaches product identity. Recently, the company was also ordered to stop using the name “io” for an upcoming hardware device. This order came in response to a separate lawsuit from a company named “iyO,” which is already developing AI-powered hardware.
The repetition of these conflicts suggests a pattern. Despite the immense resources at its disposal, OpenAI repeatedly selects names that closely resemble established trademarks, leading to costly and embarrassing legal retractions.
The Mirror Effect
There is a distinct irony in these legal hurdles. Generative AI tools are, by definition, incredible mimicking machines. They do not create from scratch; they function by finding patterns in massive datasets and outputting statistically probable answers. They are built on the work of others.
Critics argue that OpenAI seems to be matching this “derivative vibe” with its naming schemas. When a business model is built upon mimicking the outputs of human creation, perhaps it is unsurprising that creative originality in branding is not its strong suit. An easy solution would be for the startup to invent novel, original names for its “drops,” but that would require a departure from the very nature of the technology it champions.