Why Brands Should Pay Attention to Cameo’s Trademark Lawsuit Against OpenAI
OpenAI’s recent launch of its Sora video-generation app has triggered a high-profile trademark lawsuit and it’s one that every brand, platform, and technology company should be watching closely.
In late October 2025, Cameo, the well-known celebrity-video platform, sued OpenAI for trademark infringement after OpenAI introduced a Sora feature labeled “Cameo” or “Cameos.” According to Cameo, OpenAI is using its name to describe AI-generated videos of celebrity-like personas and that this directly overlaps with Cameo’s core business.
Whether or not you operate in the celebrity-content space, this dispute highlights real risks for companies naming features, launching AI tools, or expanding into adjacent markets. Below is what brands and businesses should take away from this case.
1. Your Brand Terms Can Be Put at Risk by Someone Else’s “Feature Name”
A key element of Cameo’s complaint is that OpenAI didn’t use “Cameo” as a standalone product. Instead, it used the term inside the Sora app as a feature name. For many companies, this is a blind spot. Teams often perform trademark clearance on products, but not on individual features, modes, filters, AI agents, or modules.
But as this case shows: A feature name can still infringe a trademark if consumers perceive it as a source identifier. If you are releasing new features (especially in AI, content creation, or digital publishing), it’s important to run clearance and competitor checks just as you would for a brand name or product launch.
2. AI Is Creating New Competitive Overlaps (Sometimes Overnight)
Cameo argues that OpenAI’s “Cameos” directly compete with its celebrity-video marketplace because both involve personalized videos featuring celebrities or celebrity likenesses. For brands, the lesson is clear:
AI tools can suddenly place you in a new competitive category you never anticipated.
A term that once felt descriptive or harmless can become problematic when technology shifts the market landscape.
Competitors using generative AI may end up offering something close enough to your services to create confusion or dilute your brand.
Even if your company doesn't use celebrity likenesses, this scenario applies broadly to any business where AI can replicate, simulate, or look like your offering.
3. Names That Seem “Generic” Aren’t Always Safe
OpenAI’s public position is that “cameo” is too generic for Cameo to own. Most companies assume a common English word is fair game. But trademark law focuses on context:
“Apple” is generic for fruit but distinctive for computers.
“Square” is generic in geometry but distinctive in payments.
The question isn’t “is this a common word?”
The question is: Is the word distinctive in your industry and in your commercial context?
For brands, it’s risky to assume that a common-language word is automatically free to use. Clearance is essential if you’re using the word in a way that resembles a competitor’s offering.
4. Dilution and Reputation Harm Are Especially Live Issues in AI
Cameo’s complaint emphasizes not just confusion but tarnishment, arguing that AI-generated celebrity likeness videos may reflect poorly on Cameo’s brand. This is part of a growing trend:
Brands are increasingly worried that AI output (in this case: deepfakes) will confuse consumers or harm goodwill.
Even without direct confusion, courts may consider whether AI-generated content blurs or tarnishes a known brand.
Companies launching AI tools involving:
likeness generation,
voice synthesis,
character simulation,
virtual spokespersons,
oruser-generated brand interactions
should factor in the elevated risk of dilution or association with unintended content.
5. Public Disputes Over Naming Can Damage Consumer Trust
Regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome, OpenAI has already had to issue public statements defending its naming choices. For any brand, this type of visibility can:
distract from launch messaging,
create user uncertainty,
attract regulatory attention,
and potentially require a costly mid-rollout rebrand.
This is a reminder that IP clearance is risk management, not bureaucracy.
6. Practical Steps Brands Should Take Now
A. Run trademark clearance on feature names, not just product names.
If you release updates, modes, AI personas, filters, or tools, treat them like any other brand asset.
B. Monitor adjacent markets that AI might bring you closer to.
Competitors today may not be your competitors tomorrow.
C. Audit your brand for potential collision points with generative AI.
Especially if your business involves:
creative content,
user-generated media,
talent/celebrity engagement,
avatars or characters,
interactive experiences.
D. Establish internal protocols for naming within product teams.
This is particularly important for fast-moving engineering and AI groups.
E. Consider enforcement early.
Cameo reportedly tried to resolve the issue informally before filing suit. Early action can:
protect your brand,
reduce litigation risk,
and keep issues out of the press.
7. Why This Case Should Matter to Business Leaders
This litigation isn’t just a dispute between two well-known companies. This is a preview of what’s ahead for any brand navigating AI, digital content, or rapid product innovation.
We’re entering a phase where:
feature names function like micro-brands,
AI tools blur category boundaries,
consumer confusion can arise from unexpected directions, and
brand protection requires earlier and more frequent legal involvement.
For brands, this case is a reminder that something as simple as a naming decision inside an app can have major legal and reputational consequences.
