By Rachel Busse.
As the use of AI in day-to-day life becomes increasingly prevalent, consumers are acquainting themselves with various AI tools created and marketed by different companies. However, it has become clear in recent years that ChatGPT has taken its spot at the forefront of consumers’ minds for usage of generative AI software. In 2025, an article recognized that ChatGPT had secured its branding as the image of AI to consumers, with ChatGPT itself coining the phrase “ChatGPT it” in reference to running a prompt through AI software. Given that Google ran into trademark issues based upon the common use of “Google” as a verb referring to using a search engine, there is concern for OpenAI when it comes to policing its rights to use the term “ChatGPT it.”
What is “Genericide” in Trademark Law?
Under the Lanham Act—the federal law enacted by Congress in 1946 to govern trademark registration—a trademark cannot be registered if it is “generic” for the goods or services that the trademark covers. This means that a trademark cannot be registered for generic terms within the sphere of the goods or services. For example, Johnson & Johnson could not register the trademark “bandages” for adhesive bandages, since the trademark is generic for the goods it provides. The rationale behind the existence of “generic” terms in the Lanham Act is to ensure that one individual or brand cannot claim exclusive rights to a term that is used by many people within the sphere of those goods or services. Imagine if no other brands could use the term “bandages” without receiving a cease and desist letter from Johnson & Johnson. The result would be the overpolicing of common words and phrases and the inability for other brands to even sell bandages, given that they could not use that term to describe their product.
Another similar concept exists under the Lanham Act. In section 1064(3) of the act, Congress describes another method through which a trademark can be deemed generic and therefore cancellable. Under this section, if an already registered trademark becomes the generic name for the goods or services, then a petition to cancel the trademark can be filed. A petition to cancel is a filing that begins a cancellation proceeding—a proceeding in which an interested party can argue that the registered trademark should be cancelled for some legal reason, which in this case would be based on the mark becoming generic. This concept has been termed “genericide.”
Genericide is a growing issue for many popular brands. Famously, Velcro released a song to try to police the use of the term “velcro” for hook-and-loop fasteners so that it would not lose its trademark rights. In 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Google in a cancellation action based on genericide. In this case, Elliott petitioned for cancellation of the GOOGLE trademark in the Arizona District Court, arguing that the word “google” itself had become the generic, universally understood term to describe “the act of ‘searching on the internet.’” If Google were to have its trademark cancelled it would have been faced with the inability to police the use of the word “google,” which could have allowed anyone to create search engines using the word “google.” This would have been confusing for consumers and potentially damaged or even destroyed Google’s brand identity. Luckily for Google, the court of appeals held that while a term can become generic for a good or service, “google” being used for the act of searching the internet is not the same as it becoming the generic term for internet search engines. The court therefore affirmed summary judgment in favor of Google.
Will ChatGPT Face Genericide?
On September 15, 2026, OpenAI’s trademark for “CHATGPT” was published. Now that OpenAI has acquired trademark rights, the concern arises as to whether the term “ChatGPT” will become generic for AI software and it could lose its right to police the use of the term. Unlike Google, which has become a generic term for the act of searching, as emphasized by the court of appeals, ChatGPT as it stands is a term that is being used for generative AI software in general. This could pose a problem for ChatGPT if the phrase continues to be used generically for any generative AI and is not limited just to OpenAI’s software.
While it can be beneficial to a brand to have their name be so widespread and heavily associated with their goods, it can also be a very dangerous line to toe. Right now, ChatGPT is one of many generative AI software options and the market is ever-growing. That means it is helpful for ChatGPT to stand out as a household name. However, if ChatGPT as a phrase does not become limited to OpenAI’s trademarked software, then OpenAI should become concerned about losing its trademark rights.
A ® is worth a thousand words. Given the prevalence of ChatGPT as a brand, it is likely that if “ChatGPT” does start to become too generic of a term, its competitors will take advantage and look to file a petition to cancel OpenAI’s trademark. If OpenAI cannot police the use of the term, then it will lose its identity and uniqueness within the AI space.
The Importance of Taking Action Now
Taking all of this into consideration, it is vital that OpenAI start to take action to ensure that coinage of the term “ChatGPT it” does not cross the line into genericide. Allowing or even encouraging the use of the term “ChatGPT” for anything other than OpenAI’s own software could be detrimental to its brand, so acting now while it can still reasonably contain the term is important. Policing the term after it has already escaped containment is much more difficult than policing the term while the trademark rights are fresh. Velcro is an excellent example of these difficulties. If OpenAI wishes to keep its trademark rights, it is essential that it carefully monitors the use of the term and that it does not promote its use for generic generative AI software, even if that comes at the expense of growing its brand.
Rachel Busse is a second-year law student at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Before law school, she earned her Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Spanish from the University of Arizona. In her free time, Rachel enjoys spending time with her dogs, reading, and baking.
