A C.D. Cal. ruling on April 28, 2026 illustrates the limits of the kitchen-sink complaint: when every claim turns on the same alleged copying, the Lanham Act and common law unfair competition claims fall to copyright preemption.

A federal court in the Northern District of California has enjoined OpenAI from using the name “Cameo” for a feature on its Sora video-generation application, finding that the celebrity video marketplace Cameo is likely to succeed on its trademark infringement claim. The ruling applies established trademark doctrine to AI feature branding and rejects OpenAI’s argument that “cameo” is merely descriptive.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a $1 billion copyright verdict against Cox Communications, holding that an ISP is not contributorily liable for its subscribers’ infringement merely because it continues to serve known infringers. The decision also may have rendered the DMCA safe harbor obsolete.

Britannica and Merriam-Webster sued OpenAI for copyright infringement and added a Lanham Act claim alleging that ChatGPT’s hallucinations, when attributed to their brands, constitute false designation of origin.

In Woodland v. Hill, No. 23-55418, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11911, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 1417103 (9th Cir. May 16, 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a published decision, affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a copyright complaint. In the process, it offered some interesting observations on the access element of copyright infringement in light of evolving technology.

What happens if the copyright owner applies for copyright registration before the statute of limitations has run but the Copyright Office does not issue a certificate of registration until after the statute of limitations has run? That issue is scheduled to be argued before the United States Supreme Court on January 8, 2019.