This Month in AI Trademarks: What OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Meta, and xAI Filed in June 2026

The trademark register is a product roadmap that companies file with the government. Every month, this column tracks AI trademark filings from the five largest AI companies at the USPTO, covering what those filings target and what they signal about products and strategies that haven't been announced yet.

June was busy. Meta filed 10 applications across four marks, including a new social platform called FORUM. Anthropic extended the Claude brand into staffing, grants, and training. Google quietly trademarked a product nobody has heard of. And xAI walked into another naming conflict.

Here's everything that happened.

June 2026 AI Trademark Filings: The Scoreboard

Eighteen AI trademark filings hit the USPTO in June 2026, spread unevenly across the five companies.

A quick primer on reading these: each trademark application targets one or more Nice classes, the international system that categorizes goods and services into 45 numbered groups. Class 9 covers software and electronics. Class 35 covers advertising and business management. Class 42 covers technology services and SaaS. When a company files across multiple classes, it's claiming broader territory for that name.

The filing count alone tells part of the story. Meta's 10 applications span only four distinct product names (companies often file one application per class). The more interesting signal is what each filing covers.

Anthropic's Claude Expansion

Anthropic made five filings this month, and the most significant one has nothing to do with software.

CLAUDE CORPS (app 99903979, filed June 24) covers three classes that signal a workforce program, not a product feature:

• Class 35: Employment staffing and recruiting in AI, placement of personnel in AI
• Class 36: Providing grants for supporting AI adoption by nonprofits, charitable services
• Class 41: Fellowship training programs in AI, IT training, interactive online training

The Claude Corps trademark is the Claude brand extending into staffing, philanthropy, and education. If Anthropic announces an AI fellowship program or a nonprofit grant initiative, CLAUDE CORPS is the trademark that covers it. The Class 36 filing (charitable grants for AI adoption by nonprofits) is especially notable. None of the other four companies filed anything in Class 36 this month. None of them filed anything resembling workforce development.

Earlier in the month, Anthropic filed CLAUDE MYTHOS (apps 99872437 and 99872440, filed June 8) in Classes 9 and 42, covering downloadable AI software and SaaS. The timing matters: Claude Fable 5 launched publicly on June 9, one day after the filing. This is the same launch-radar pattern seen repeatedly in AI trademark filings: the name appears in the register, then the product appears in the wild.

Anthropic also filed two design marks (apps 99897630 and 99897637, filed June 22) in Classes 9, 35, 41, and 42. These contain no text component, which typically means logos or visual branding elements. The exact designs aren't yet available in the public record.

The pattern across all five filings: Anthropic is branching Claude beyond software. MYTHOS extends the product lineup. CORPS extends the brand into programs and services. The design marks extend the visual identity. Claude is becoming an umbrella brand.

Google's Mystery Product: Pomelli

Google filed only two applications in June, but one of them is a genuine unknown.

POMELLI (app 99873970, filed June 9) landed in Classes 9, 35, and 42, covering:

• Class 9: Downloadable AI software for generating marketing campaigns and marketing creatives
• Class 35: Advertising, business management, AI-powered marketing services
• Class 42: Non-downloadable AI platform for marketing campaigns and creatives

POMELLI is not a known Google product. It hasn't appeared in any Google I/O presentation, blog post, or leaked roadmap. The filing describes an AI-powered marketing platform that generates campaigns and creative assets, both as downloadable software (Class 9) and as a cloud service (Class 42).

Google already has Performance Max, Google Ads, and various AI creative tools scattered across its advertising stack. POMELLI could be a unifying brand for AI-generated marketing content, a standalone product, or a feature that ships under a different name entirely (companies sometimes file defensive trademarks for names they ultimately don't use). But the three-class filing suggests more than a placeholder. Covering downloadable software, advertising services, and a cloud platform is the structure of a real product filing.

Google's other June filing, GOOGLEBOOK (app 99859431, filed June 2, Class 9), covers computers, computer hardware, laptop computers, and recorded computer operating software. A hardware filing. Whether this signals a Chromebook rebrand, a new product line, or a defensive registration remains to be seen.

Starmind xAI: The Naming Conflict Pattern

xAI made one filing in June, but it comes with baggage.

STARMIND (app 99898550, filed June 22) covers five classes:

• Class 9: Satellites, satellite transmitters/receivers, AI software, social networking software, payment processing, APIs
• Class 35: Business consulting
• Class 38: Streaming of software applications
• Class 41: Education services, conducting workshops
• Class 42: IT services, cloud computing, SaaS, DNS services, game engine software, IoT

The Class 9 scope alone is enormous: satellites, satellite communications, AI software, computer games, voice recognition, character recognition, payment processing, geo-location, and APIs. This is xAI staking a claim that stretches well beyond conversational AI into space hardware and infrastructure services.

The filing uses a 44(d) priority basis, which means xAI likely filed this mark internationally first (through a foreign application) and is now claiming priority at the USPTO based on that earlier filing date. This is a common strategy for companies planning multi-jurisdiction launches.

Here's the problem: Starmind AG already holds WIPO registration WO1284141, filed back in August 2015, for the exact same name (STARMIND) in the exact same five classes (9, 35, 38, 41, 42). That registration's status is currently listed as inactive (mixed), and Starmind International AG has an even older filing from November 2012 in those classes.

xAI appears aware of the conflict. Every class in the STARMIND application includes a carved-out disclaimer: "none of the foregoing in connection with goods or services that identify internal experts in an enterprise and use only the identified internal expert information as a basis to allow internal personnel route communications and exchange information."

That carve-out describes Starmind AG's core product (enterprise knowledge management and internal expert identification). xAI deliberately excluded it.

Whether that carve-out is sufficient to avoid a likelihood-of-confusion refusal is an open question. But the pattern is familiar. xAI went through a similar conflict with the GROK name, which faced prior registrations from other parties. For more on how AI companies handle contested names, see Signa's deep dive on AI trademark conflicts.

Meta Forum Trademark and VR Hardware Lineup

Meta led the filing count with 10 applications, split between a new social platform and three VR/AR hardware names.

FORUM arrived as six separate applications (one per class, filed June 10) covering Classes 9, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 45. That's social networking software, advertising, telecommunications, entertainment, technology services, and content moderation. Six classes for a social platform is thorough. It's also a name with significant prior art.

At least four existing FORUM registrations overlap with Meta's filing:

• Transom Post OpCo holds FORUM in Class 9 (reg 8154066)
• Dispute Management Services holds FORUM in Classes 9, 35, and 45 (reg 7276206)
• Naomir LLC holds FORUM in Classes 9 and 42 (reg 6708563)
• Forum Brands holds FORUM in Class 35 (reg 6898009)

Every class in Meta's filing has at least one existing registration for the same name. That doesn't automatically block Meta's application (trademark rights are scoped to specific goods and services, and a social networking platform may be distinguishable from the existing registrants' products), but it does mean Meta's examiners will have questions. Each overlap creates a potential opposition or office action.

On the hardware side, Meta filed three new VR/AR product names on June 23:

• STARFIRE (apps 99900357/99900362, Classes 9 and 10)
• META ADVENTURER (apps 99900368/99900372, Classes 9 and 10)
• META FURY (apps 99900377/99900387, Classes 9 and 10)

All three cover VR glasses, AR glasses, smart eyewear, and computer hardware. Class 10 (medical devices, which includes certain wearable health monitoring devices) alongside Class 9 suggests these products may include health or biometric features. Filing three hardware marks on the same day points to a product lineup reveal, likely a tiered hardware range similar to how Meta currently structures its Quest series.

The Quiet One: OpenAI

OpenAI filed zero trademark applications at the USPTO in June 2026. Its most recent filing was DAYBREAK (app 99815477, filed May 11) in Classes 9 and 42.

A quiet month isn't necessarily a signal. OpenAI may have filed internationally through WIPO or other offices. It may have completed its name-clearing earlier. Or it may simply be in a phase where product naming isn't the priority. One month of zero filings is a data point, not a trend.

What AI Company Trademarks to Watch Next Month

Four stories from June's filings deserve follow-up:

CLAUDE CORPS. If Anthropic announces a public AI workforce program, fellowship, or nonprofit grant initiative, this column will have flagged the name first. The trademark covers staffing, grants, and training. That's a specific enough scope to suggest a real program, not a defensive filing.

POMELLI. Google doesn't typically file trademarks for products it isn't planning to ship. A three-class filing covering downloadable software, advertising services, and a cloud platform has the structure of a product that's being built. Watch for a reveal at a Google Cloud or Marketing Live event.

STARMIND vs. Starmind AG. The carved-out disclaimer in xAI's filing shows the company knows about the prior registration. Whether the carve-out survives examination is a question for the USPTO. If a likelihood-of-confusion refusal lands, xAI will need to either negotiate with Starmind AG or pick a different name.

FORUM clearance. Four existing registrations in overlapping classes make this the most crowded name Meta has filed in recent memory. The examination process will test whether a Meta social platform is sufficiently distinct from the existing FORUM holders' goods and services. Trademark monitoring on this name will be instructive over the next 90 days.

About the Data

Every filing referenced in this column was sourced from public USPTO records via Signa's trademark database, current to June 30, 2026. Filing counts include all applications where the named entity (or a known subsidiary) is the listed applicant. Design mark content is limited to what's publicly available in the register at time of publication.

This column reports on public records and does not constitute legal advice. Trademark registration outcomes depend on examination, potential oppositions, and other factors specific to each application. Consult a trademark attorney for legal guidance specific to your situation.

The June 2026 dataset, including every filing mentioned above, is available through Signa's trademark database.