OpenAI has been ordered to stop using the term “Cameo” to market a key feature in its Sora video app, after a federal judge issued a preliminary ruling siding with the celebrity video marketplace Cameo in its trademark dispute. The court found that OpenAI’s use of the same word to label AI-generated video clips risks confusing consumers about the source and nature of the service.
What The Court Found About OpenAI’s Cameo Label Use
In a preliminary order, U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee concluded that Cameo is likely to succeed on its claim that OpenAI’s branding could cause confusion, pointing to overlapping marketing strategies and the use of “cameo” as an “app-defining feature.” The judge noted that OpenAI’s labeling placed AI videos “in a manner derived from Plaintiff’s CAMEO mark,” increasing the chance that users would associate the feature with the well-known marketplace for paid messages from public figures.
The court also cited troubling examples of content produced with Sora’s “cameo” feature, including hyper-realistic deepfakes depicting Martin Luther King Jr. in offensive scenarios. That context, the judge suggested, heightened the potential reputational harm by blurring the line between Cameo’s authentic celebrity greetings and AI-generated lookalikes.
Why The Name Matters In U.S. Trademark Law For AI
While “cameo” is a dictionary word, U.S. trademark law routinely protects common terms when they identify a particular source within a specific category. Courts in the Ninth Circuit typically assess likelihood of confusion under the Sleekcraft factors, weighing the strength of the mark, similarity of the parties’ marks, proximity of the services, evidence of actual or likely confusion, marketing channels, and consumer care. The judge’s order emphasized several of those elements: similarity of the designation, overlapping channels, and the realistic nature of the videos at issue.
This is not a finding of final liability, but it is a significant signal. Preliminary injunctions are granted only when a plaintiff shows a likelihood of success on the merits and a risk of irreparable harm, among other factors. For brands operating in fast-moving AI categories, the ruling underscores that product feature names can carry the same trademark risk as company or product names if they function as source identifiers.
How Sora’s Feature Fits The Ongoing Trademark Dispute
Within Sora, users can opt into a tool allowing their likeness to be used in AI-generated clips. OpenAI labeled that capability as “Cameo,” positioning it as a marquee experience to create realistic short videos. Cameo, the platform, offers real videos recorded by thousands of celebrities and creators as paid greetings and shout-outs. The court agreed that placing AI videos under the same term “Cameo” risks persuading users that the AI output is affiliated with, endorsed by, or a substitute for Cameo’s authentic, human-made messages.
OpenAI had already shifted some references from “Cameo” to “Characters” after an earlier temporary restraining order, according to industry reports, but the judge concluded ongoing use still created a likelihood of confusion warranting stronger relief.
OpenAI’s Position And Next Steps In The Cameo Case
OpenAI disputes that any party can monopolize a common word like “cameo,” telling reporters it plans to continue making its case in court. That argument often tracks a “descriptive fair use” defense, but it typically fails when the challenged use operates as a brand or feature name rather than a purely descriptive phrase. For now, the order means OpenAI must avoid the term while the litigation proceeds, a process that could culminate in a trial, settlement, or permanent injunction.
The company faces a broader thicket of legal scrutiny around its content-generation tools, including disputes involving copyright owners and media organizations. In response to rights-holder concerns, OpenAI has introduced opt-out mechanisms and safety filters, but courts are increasingly scrutinizing how AI companies brand, market, and police the outputs of their systems.
Implications For AI Branding And Product Naming
The takeaway for AI developers is straightforward: feature names can carry heavy legal weight. Even when a term is part of the everyday lexicon, using it as a flagship label for a high-profile capability invites comparison to existing marks—especially if the products live in adjacent spaces or use similar promotion tactics. Consumer surveys, actual confusion evidence, and platform behaviors (such as viral sharing of AI clips) can quickly tilt the analysis toward injunctions that force costly rebrands.
For Cameo, the ruling helps protect years of brand equity built around real, personalized videos. For OpenAI, it is a reminder that in the race to name and ship new AI features, trademark vetting is not a box to check later. With litigation accelerating across the AI landscape, expect naming strategies to become more conservative—and more creative—as companies steer clear of well-known marks while still conveying what their tools can do.
