February and March marked a series of legal decisions that signal a significant shift in how trademark law is interpreted and applied. From district courts to the Supreme Court, the rules governing brand names and creative content are being redefined. For businesses, particularly those managing trademark portfolios or using AI-assisted content, this period remains one of cautious vigilance.
Feature Naming and Trademark Clearance
On February 14, Judge Eumi Lee of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against OpenAI, blocking the use of the name "Cameo" for a feature in its Sora video-generation platform. The case arose when Open, a well-established celebrity video platform, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit. The court ruled that "Cameo" was not merely descriptive but suggestive and therefore eligible for trademark protection.
OpenAI had previously renamed the feature "Characters" after an earlier restraining order, but the preliminary injunction solidified that change. The company has since appealed to the Ninth Circuit. This case underscores that feature naming is not a simple branding decision - it is a critical part of trademark clearance. A naming conflict with a well-funded competitor can lead to emergency injunctive relief at product launch, forcing costly rebranding with long-term reputational consequences.
AI Authorship and Copyright Law
On March 2, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, upholding the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that copyright protection requires human authorship. Dr. Stephen Thaler had argued that his AI system, DABUS, autonomously created visual art, and that ownership should vest in the system's creator. The Copyright Office, the district court, and the D.C. Circuit all rejected this claim.
The decision has important implications for companies using generative AI tools. Copyright protection now hinges on the degree of human creative involvement in directing, shaping, or altering AI-generated content. Works with minimal human input may lack protection. In-house counsel should review AI content policies to determine what, if any, rights the company holds when publishing AI-assisted creative work.
The Merch Wars and Circuit Split
The most consequential trademark appeal of 2026 is moving through the Third Circuit in The Pennsylvania State University v. Vintage Brand LLC. A federal jury found Vintage Brand liable for willful trademark infringement after it sold retro-style merchandise featuring Penn State logos and historical imagery without a license. The district court rejected the so-called "per se" rule, which treats any use of a trademark on merchandise as inherently source-identifying, and instead required Penn State to prove actual likelihood of confusion.
The judge acknowledged skepticism about applying trademark law to situations where the university had no direct role in selling the merchandise but upheld the jury's verdict and issued a permanent injunction. Vintage Brand has appealed, and the Third Circuit now has the chance to resolve a circuit split that has never been directly addressed at the appellate level or by the Supreme Court.
Uncertainty at the USPTO
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is currently operating under a period of genuine uncertainty. The Trademark Commissioner's position has been vacant since February 2025, following the departure of David Gooder. Leadership changes and a hiring freeze have affected the agency's ability to manage its workload efficiently.
Despite historic lows in trademark processing times - first-action pendency had dropped to around 5 to 6 months - these improvements are now under threat. Staffing shortages, attrition, and internal communication challenges could reverse recent gains. In-house counsel should consider filing trademark applications earlier and building more flexibility into brand launch timelines.
With the legal landscape shifting so rapidly, it’s more important than ever to stay ahead of potential conflicts. Monitoring your trademarks is not just a best practice - it’s a necessity. IP Defender monitors national trademark databases for conflicts and infringements, helping businesses protect their intellectual property before it’s too late. By staying proactive, you can avoid the costly and time-consuming legal battles that come with reactive approaches.