The OpenAI Cameo lawsuit has resulted in a significant legal victory for the celebrity video platform. A California federal judge ruled on Saturday that OpenAI must stop using the term Cameo or any similar variation that could cause confusion with the established brand. The preliminary injunction represents a major setback for OpenAI’s video generation tool Sora, which launched with a feature bearing that exact name.
Table of Contents
How did the lawsuit even begin in the first place?
The OpenAI Cameo lawsuit began when Cameo, the platform where celebrities sell personalized video messages, filed a trademark infringement case against the AI company in November 2025. Cameo’s complaint centered on a specific feature within OpenAI’s Sora app that allowed users to add any likeness to AI generated videos. OpenAI called this feature Cameo, which the celebrity platform argued would cause confusion in the marketplace and dilute their established brand.
Cameo has built its entire business around the concept of celebrity cameos. Users visit the platform, pick a celebrity or public figure, pay a fee, and receive a short personalized video message. The brand has become synonymous with this type of celebrity content over the years. When OpenAI launched Sora with a feature using the same term for inserting likenesses into AI generated videos, Cameo saw it as a direct threat to their trademark.
The timing made the situation worse. Sora launched to significant fanfare as one of the most impressive AI video generators available. The Cameo feature within Sora got considerable attention in tech media coverage, which Cameo argued amplified the potential for brand confusion. Users might think there was a partnership between the two companies or that Cameo had expanded into AI video generation.
What did the court ultimately decide?
US District Judge Eumi Lee granted a temporary restraining order in the OpenAI Cameo lawsuit back in November when the case was first filed. That initial order was meant to prevent immediate harm while the court examined the merits of the case. On Saturday, Judge Lee went further by issuing a preliminary injunction, which represents a stronger legal determination that Cameo is likely to succeed in proving their trademark claims.
The preliminary injunction in the OpenAI Cameo lawsuit blocks the AI company from using the term Cameo or any confusingly similar variations in connection with their video generation features. This is not a final ruling on the merits of the case, but it signals that the judge believes Cameo has demonstrated a likelihood of success if the lawsuit proceeds to trial.
For a preliminary injunction to be granted, Cameo had to show several things. They needed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, that the balance of hardships tips in their favor, and that an injunction serves the public interest. Judge Lee apparently found all these elements satisfied in the OpenAI Cameo lawsuit.
So, what did OpenAI have to say about this?
OpenAI did not take the ruling quietly. A company spokesperson issued a statement disagreeing with the complaint and the court’s decision. The statement argued that no one can claim exclusive ownership over the word cameo, since it is a common English term that predates both companies. OpenAI indicated they plan to continue fighting the OpenAI Cameo lawsuit and making their case in court.
The company has a point that cameo is a dictionary word with an established meaning. In film and television, a cameo refers to a brief appearance by a well known person, often playing themselves. The term has been used in entertainment for decades before either OpenAI or the Cameo platform existed. OpenAI’s legal argument will likely center on whether Cameo can truly own such a common term as a trademark.
However, trademark law does protect common words when they have acquired secondary meaning in commerce. Apple is a common word, but it is also a protected trademark for computers and phones. Amazon is a river and a region, but also a protected brand for e-commerce. Whether Cameo has established sufficient secondary meaning and whether OpenAI’s use creates confusion are the central questions the OpenAI Cameo lawsuit will ultimately decide.
How is Sora affected by this ruling?
Following the preliminary injunction in the OpenAI Cameo lawsuit, OpenAI will need to rebrand or remove the feature from Sora. The company has a few options. They could pick a completely different name that does not infringe on Cameo’s trademark. They could call it something like Character Insertion, Likeness Addition, or Personal Avatar Feature. The specific name matters less than ensuring it does not create confusion with Cameo’s brand.
Alternatively, OpenAI could challenge whether the feature needs a specific branded name at all. They might integrate the functionality into Sora without giving it a distinct label, simply making it part of the standard video generation process. This approach would sidestep the trademark issue entirely while preserving the technical capability that users want.
The third option is to appeal the preliminary injunction or continue fighting the OpenAI Cameo lawsuit in hopes of getting the restriction lifted. But appeals take time, and OpenAI likely wants to avoid prolonged uncertainty around a core feature of their video generation product. Rebranding probably makes more business sense than years of litigation.
The preliminary injunction is not the end of the OpenAI Cameo lawsuit. The case will continue toward trial unless the parties reach a settlement. Discovery will proceed, where both sides exchange documents and take depositions to build their cases. Expert witnesses will likely testify about consumer confusion, trademark distinctiveness, and whether secondary meaning exists for the Cameo brand.
OpenAI could still win at trial if they successfully argue that cameo is too generic to be trademarked for video features, that no actual consumer confusion occurred, or that their use qualifies as fair use of a descriptive term. But the preliminary injunction suggests the judge believes Cameo has the stronger legal position at this stage.
Settlement is always possible in the OpenAI Cameo lawsuit. OpenAI might pay Cameo some amount of money in exchange for permission to use a modified version of the name or to make the lawsuit go away. Cameo might accept a settlement if the terms include sufficient protections for their brand and adequate compensation. Neither company has indicated any willingness to settle yet, but most intellectual property disputes end in settlement rather than going all the way to verdict.
The OpenAI Cameo lawsuit will be watched closely by others in the AI industry. The outcome could influence how other AI companies approach naming their features and whether they take trademark clearance more seriously before launch. For now, OpenAI must comply with the preliminary injunction, which means finding a new name for the feature that let users add likenesses to Sora videos. Whatever they choose, it definitely will not be called Cameo.
