The end of February and beginning of March delivered a flurry of decisions that, taken together, tell one story: the rules governing brand names and creative content are being redrawn by courts—from district courts up to the Supreme Court—and the federal government simultaneously. If you’re managing a trademark portfolio or relying on AI-assisted content, the ides of March remain a cautious time.
Naming an AI Feature Is a Trademark Decision
On February 14, Judge Eumi Lee of the Northern District of California was not feeling the love for OpenAI, issuing a preliminary injunction in Baron App, Inc. d/b/a Cameo v. OpenAI, Inc., blocking OpenAI from using the name “Cameo” for any feature within its Sora video-generation platform. The case began when OpenAI launched the Sora feature, “Cameo,” that allowed users to insert their digital likeness into AI-generated videos. Cameo, the celebrity video platform that has spent nearly a decade building its brand around personalized talent-to-fan connections, sued for trademark infringement. The court found that Cameo was likely to succeed on the merits, rejecting OpenAI’s argument that “cameo” was merely a descriptive term. In the court’s view, “Cameo” was suggestive, putting the mark squarely in protectable territory. OpenAI had already renamed the feature “Characters” after an earlier restraining order, but the preliminary injunction locks that in through trial. OpenAI has since filed notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The takeaway for in-house counsel is direct: feature naming is trademark clearance work. A naming collision with a well-funded incumbent can trigger emergency injunctive relief at product launch—the worst possible moment—forcing a costly rebrand with reputational ripple effects that outlast the litigation.
The Supreme Court Closes the Door on Pure AI Authorship
On March 2, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter (No. 25-449), leaving intact the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that copyright protection requires human authorship. Dr. Stephen Thaler had spent years arguing that his DABUS AI system autonomously created a piece of visual art and that ownership should vest in the system’s creator. The Copyright Office, the district court, and the D.C. Circuit all said no. And now the Supreme Court has declined to weigh in, at least for now. The practical implication for companies using generative AI tools is significant: copyright protection turns on the degree of human creative involvement in directing, shaping, or materially altering the AI’s output. Works generated with minimal human input may be unprotectable. In-house counsel should be reviewing their company’s AI content policies now — not just for registration purposes, but to understand what, if anything, the company actually owns when it publishes AI-assisted creative work.
The Merch Wars Head to the Third Circuit
The most consequential trademark appeal of 2026 is quietly winding its way 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 bearing Penn State logos and historical imagery without a license. The district court rejected the so-called “per se” rule — the shortcut used in the Fifth Circuit and at the TTAB that treats any use of a trademark on merchandise as inherently source-identifying — and instead required Penn State to prove actual likelihood of confusion, which it did.
The trial judge was candid about his own skepticism that trademark law was ever intended for situations in which the university plays no direct role in selling the merchandise, but he upheld the jury’s verdict and entered a permanent injunction. Vintage Brand has, not surprisingly, appealed. The Third Circuit now has an opportunity to weigh in on a circuit split that has never been directly resolved at the appellate level in that jurisdiction, nor at the Supreme Court. For brand owners — universities, sports franchises, consumer brands — the appeal is worth tracking closely.
The USPTO Is in a Period of Genuine Uncertainty
The past several months brought real change to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and in-house counsel should plan accordingly. The Trademark Commissioner’s position has been vacant since February 2025, when David Gooder concluded his term amid a wave of senior leadership departures triggered by the administration’s return-to-office mandate and deferred resignation offers. While the USPTO’s trademark examining attorneys were spared in the probationary employee terminations that swept other parts of the federal workforce, the agency is operating under a hiring freeze, supervisory staff has experienced attrition, and internal communication has reportedly suffered. The USPTO’s trademark processing times had actually reached historic lows heading into 2026 — first-action pendency had dropped to roughly 5 to 6 months — but those gains depend on a staffing model that is now under pressure. If the examiner corps shrinks, or if morale-driven attrition accelerates, timelines that recently improved could reverse quickly. The practical advice: file your trademark applications sooner rather than later, and build more runway into brand launch timelines than you did a year ago.
Bottom Line
This month reminded us that the biggest trademark risks often live inside a product team’s naming meeting or a developer’s AI tool. If your company hasn’t built trademark clearance into its feature-naming and AI content workflows, now is the time — and given the uncertainty at the USPTO, file early and file carefully.
