Opposition by OpenAI OpCo LLC to registration of trade mark application number 2351553 (class 45) - IMMIGPT - in the name of REALOZ INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

In the matter of an opposition by OpenAI OpCo LLC to the registration of trade mark application number 2351553, IMMIGPT, in class 45, in the name of REALOZ INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD, the Honourable Justice Tracey Berger of the Federal Court of Australia considered the opposition. The applicant, REALOZ INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD, sought to register the trade mark IMMIGPT for services including immigration assistance and advice. The opponent, OpenAI OpCo LLC, opposed this registration on several grounds, including that the mark was deceptive or misleading, and that it was substantially identical or deceptively similar to its own registered trade marks.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the IMMIGPT trade mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion, and whether it was substantially identical or deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade marks, specifically those incorporating the term "GPT". The Court was required to assess the overall impression of the marks, considering their visual, aural, and conceptual elements, and to determine if there was a real and sensible chance of confusion among the relevant public. This involved an examination of the respective goods and services, the distinctiveness of the opponent's marks, and the potential for the applicant's mark to create an association with the opponent.

Justice Tracey Berger applied the established principles for assessing deceptive similarity and the likelihood of deception or confusion under the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Court considered the opponent's argument that the "GPT" component of its marks had acquired significant distinctiveness and was strongly associated with its AI-powered language models. However, the Court found that the applicant's mark IMMIGPT, when considered as a whole, conveyed a primary meaning related to immigration services, with "IMMIG" clearly indicating immigration and "GPT" being a common abbreviation or suffix in certain contexts. The Court concluded that while there might be some conceptual overlap due to the shared "GPT" element, the overall impression and the specific services offered by the applicant were sufficiently distinct from the opponent's offerings to avoid deception or confusion. The Court also considered the evidence regarding the distinctiveness of the opponent's marks and found that while "GPT" was a significant element, it did not automatically confer a monopoly over its use in all contexts, particularly when combined with a descriptive prefix like "IMMIG".

The Court dismissed the opposition.