OpenAI has failed to block the Singapore-based startup Porolis Technologies from registering the “GemGPT” trademark, following a ruling by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) that found the shared use of the letters “GPT” was insufficient to establish trademark infringement. The decision, handed down by the IPOS tribunal on October 28, 2026, allows the gemstone-focused AI firm to proceed with its branding and awards it $10,000 in costs.
IPOS rejects OpenAI’s five objections to GemGPT registration
The dispute centered on whether the “GPT” suffix functioned as a proprietary identifier for OpenAI or had transitioned into a generic descriptor for a specific class of technology. According to the Straits Times, OpenAI raised five separate objections against the trademark application, alleging that GemGPT would cause public confusion, harm its established logos, and that Porolis had acted in bad faith by attempting to ride on OpenAI’s reputation.
Principal assistant registrar Gabriel Ong rejected all five objections. The tribunal determined that “ChatGPT” and “GemGPT” must be evaluated as complete names rather than dissecting them to give disproportionate weight to the shared three-letter string. While the companies’ services show some overlap in the broader AI sector, the registrar found the ultimate impression was that GemGPT serves an unrelated niche: AI-powered gemstone authentication.
ChatGPT creator OpenAI loses bid to block Singapore start-up’s GemGPT trademark https://t.co/jKiUHxxkBV
Porolis Technologies, a member of the B.P. de Silva group, utilizes artificial intelligence to assess the grade, authenticity, and treatment of gemstones through the analysis of images and optical data. The startup clarified that its systems are not built on or powered by OpenAI’s proprietary models, but instead utilize data owned or licensed by the company, including samples specifically labeled by gemmologists.
The May 2023 timeline dictates the legal outcome
A critical factor in the ruling was the specific timing of the trademark application. Porolis filed for the GemGPT mark on May 22, 2023, which was less than six months after the initial launch of ChatGPT on November 30, 2022. The registrar’s assessment relied heavily on public perception as it existed on that specific date in May 2023.
At the time of the application, the registrar found that OpenAI had not yet established that the letters “GPT” alone identified its business to the general public. To illustrate this, Ong drew a parallel to the branding of Gmail. He noted that even though Gmail is a globally recognized service, its fame does not prevent other businesses from using the non-distinctive element “mail” for different types of postal or electronic services.
- Application Date: May 22, 2023
- ChatGPT Launch: November 30, 2022
- Decision Date: October 28, 2026
- Costs Awarded: $10,000 to Porolis Technologies
Legal distinction between proprietary marks and model architecture
The core of the technical argument rests on the definition of “GPT” itself. Porolis argued that the term is a functional acronym for “Generative Pre-trained Transformer,” a specific type of architecture within the field of deep learning and transformer-based models. By using the term, the startup claimed it was describing the underlying technology rather than claiming an affiliation with OpenAI.
ChatGPT creator OpenAI loses bid to block Singapore start-up’s GemGPT trademark https://t.co/7ymD8dstSs
OpenAI’s attempt to argue “bad faith” failed because the tribunal found that mere knowledge of ChatGPT’s existence did not equate to a violation of commercial standards. While the registrar acknowledged Porolis likely knew of OpenAI’s market presence, the use of a technical descriptor did not justify a finding of bad faith. The ruling stated that OpenAI failed to prove that GemGPT would cause "blurring," or the weakening of ChatGPT's distinctiveness in the minds of consumers.
The decision does not permanently strip OpenAI of its ability to claim “GPT” as a distinctive mark. As Ong noted, it remains possible for the company to establish such distinctiveness at a future relevant date based on different evidentiary standards.
This ruling highlights a growing tension in the AI industry as the term “GPT” moves from a specific architectural description—referring to the Generative Pre-trained Transformer framework—toward a potential trademarked brand identity.
