The Birth of a Monster Part 2 "A Lone Warrior in the Field"

The Birth of a Monster

Part 2

"A Lone Warrior in the Field"

 

How to File a Lawsuit Against OpenAI

Samples of complaints and motions filed in U.S. Federal Court against OpenAI are provided below.

 

In this second installment, I propose looking beyond the mere technicalities of filing a complaint in U.S. Federal Court. Instead, we will address a more profound objective: how to architect a litigation strategy that secures procedural and negotiating leverage from the very outset of the case.

We are not talking about the mechanical preparation of documents, but about building a formidable legal position that begins to exert pressure starting with the very first hearing.

In this article, I will provide a detailed breakdown of:

• The Algorithm for Filing a Lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court against OpenAI regarding the operations of ChatGPT;
• Procedural Nuances and complexities;
• Common Pitfalls and typical mistakes;
• Tactical Maneuvers to strengthen your legal standing.

If you are currently considering filing a claim against OpenAI in connection with ChatGPT, this article will be of maximum strategic value to you.

This article is also highly recommended for the leadership and legal departments of: Google, Anthropic, xAI (Elon Musk), Meta, DeepSeek, Alibaba (Qwen), Baidu (Ernie), Tencent (Hunyuan), Mistral AI, Perplexity AI, Cohere, NVIDIA, Hugging Face, Databricks (MosaicML), and Stability AI.

 

 

Introduction

Filing a lawsuit in a U.S. Federal Court is not a mere formal step; it is a controlled instrument of pressure, calculation, and forecasting. It is a mistake to perceive the federal process as a routine dispute resolution procedure. In reality, it is a complex system where the legal architecture of the complaint, the choice of jurisdiction, and the precise phrasing of facts and legal grounds directly influence not only the outcome of the case but also the probability of a settlement outside the courtroom.

When studying the judicial practices of both the U.S. and Kazakhstan, one cannot help but notice fundamentally different approaches to civil procedure.

In Kazakhstan, the majority of cases reach a final judgment on the merits once they are admitted to the docket. That is, for most lawsuits filed, the court issues a final ruling. While the court may formally inquire about the possibility of a settlement, this is often a procedural formality. If the parties do not express immediate readiness to settle, the case is handed to a judge, and the classic model of trial begins.

In the United States, the situation is structured differently. A substantial portion of civil cases, including complex commercial disputes, never reach a full trial. This is not due to a "softness" in the system or a lack of conflict. The reason lies elsewhere: the process itself is designed so that the costs of litigation, the massive scope of discovery, potential procedural sanctions, and the sheer duration of the proceedings create a powerful economic and reputational lever against the defendant.

This is precisely why, in the U.S., filing a lawsuit is not the start of a conflict, but the beginning of strategic negotiations at a higher level. A well-prepared complaint sends three key signals to the defendant:

1.      The plaintiff is legally prepared.

2.      The plaintiff understands federal procedure.

3.      The plaintiff is ready for a full-scale process, including the disclosure of evidence.

If the defendant sees that the case is built systematically, the likelihood of a constructive settlement increases exponentially.

The Difference in Mental Models
It is vital to understand the difference in the societal mental models of Kazakhstan and the U.S. In Kazakhstani practice, a common stance is: "If the case is already in court, we must see it through to a verdict." There is often a sentiment of: "You were sent demand letters before court; why didn't you settle then? Why settle now?" Consequently, filing a lawsuit in Kazakhstan is seen as a final, definitive step, where approximately 85% of court decisions favor the plaintiff.

Conversely, in the American system, filing a lawsuit is often viewed as a risk management tool. If the litigation costs, reputational fallout, and potential disclosure of sensitive information become excessive for the defendant, a settlement becomes the only rational choice.

However, the key point is that this effect is achieved not by the mere act of filing, but by the quality of the complaint. U.S. Federal Courts impose high standards on the formulation of claims, the justification of jurisdiction, the structure of factual allegations, and legal argumentation. It is not enough to simply state a violation of a right. One must demonstrate a logical, evidentiary, and legal consistency. Unlike in Kazakhstan, a U.S. court is not inherently set up to "establish the truth" or protect the constitutional rights of a plaintiff by default; if your filing is weak, your case will simply be dismissed at an early stage.

The Complexity of Federal Jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction is of particular importance. An error in determining the grounds for venue or subject matter jurisdiction can lead to a dismissal or a transfer, weakening the plaintiff's position from the start. Furthermore, in federal litigation, the structure of the claims—alternative theories of liability, correct prayer for damages, references to federal statutes or diversity jurisdiction, and citations of precedent—are all elements of a strategic construct.

One cannot ignore the future stage of discovery. Even while drafting the initial complaint, one must anticipate which documents, correspondence, internal reports, or contractual materials can be demanded from the defendant. The complaint must be phrased to maximize the scope of permissible disclosure in the future. This is one of the most powerful tools of procedural pressure in the federal system.

Thus, maximum advantages in U.S. Federal Court are not formed in the courtroom, but at the moment of designing the complaint. A strong position is built in advance—through the legal architecture of the document, the strategic calculation of the defendant’s behavior, and an understanding of the economic logic of the process.

A Comparative View of the Systems
In Kazakhstan, the judicial process is significantly more formalized and predictable in terms of timing. Most first-instance cases are resolved within a few months, or even a single month. The process is relatively fast and procedurally standardized.

In the U.S., federal litigation can last significantly longer. Complex commercial cases often take years. This is due to the sheer volume of procedural hurdles, the extensive discovery phase, numerous motions, and the detailed vetting of evidence. Time itself becomes a factor of pressure.

The degree of formalism also differs. In Kazakhstan, courts generally do not apply an overly rigid approach to formal defects in a lawsuit. In the U.S., the situation is the opposite. To have a case admitted, one must flawlessly comply with procedural requirements: correct jurisdiction, proper venue, service of process, payment of fees, and strict adherence to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). An error at any of these stages can lead to dismissal without a hearing on the merits.

Furthermore, professional representation is a virtual necessity in the U.S., especially when litigating against major corporations. This is not a matter of status, but of the complexity of the Anglo-Saxon common law system. Case law (precedent) plays a pivotal role, and a sound legal position requires the analysis of a massive body of prior court decisions.

Philosophy of the Process
The difference between the two systems is a difference in philosophy. In Kazakhstan, the court acts as an active administrator of the procedure. In the U.S., the majority of the procedural responsibility rests on the parties.

In preparing this explanation, my goal was not just to describe the differences between the systems, but to show which strategic elements can be used to strengthen a plaintiff’s position. In the U.S., it is vital to understand how to occupy a dominant position at the very beginning of the litigation.

As you study the draft complaints and motions provided below, please note that they were prepared from the perspective of a lawyer practicing in the Kazakhstani legal system. This means the logic of the argumentation and the points of emphasis may differ from typical American procedural models. In some cases, certain formulations may appear unconventional to a U.S. Federal Court, as they reflect a different professional "lens."

In Kazakhstan, things are done with maximum speed—a certain "quick ingenuity" (smekalka), if you will. In the U.S., one must adhere to specific rules, wait for the right moment, and deliberate. These drafts represent a unique angle of vision that may significantly accelerate the protection of your rights.

Scope of the Current Claim
Please note that the sample claim is drafted regarding unfair competition, not monetary compensation. The subject of the lawsuit is the violation of my intellectual property rights. The claim is not currently based on "direct competition," as my site does not yet utilize Apple Pay or direct U.S. payment processing. I have reserved this "trump card" for the future: once Apple Pay is integrated for U.S. territory, a subsequent claim will be filed in Federal Court.

If you find discrepancies or, more importantly, are ready to assist in the filing and successful prosecution of this case, please contact me via WhatsApp at +7-702-847-80-20.

If you represent an AI market participant and are a direct competitor of OpenAI, and you believe OpenAI’s actions prejudice your interests (e.g., preventing you from taking your rightful place in the market through unfair competition), I invite you to cooperate and provide assistance in this matter.

It is important to understand that I have already "anchored" my position before even entering the court. I have an extensive "trail" of evidence collected at an early stage—specifically, a large number of notarial protocols for the preservation of electronic evidence.

A final crucial nuance: If you plan to file in U.S. Federal Court to recover monetary damages, you must register your intellectual property rights within the United States. However, filing the claim presented below regarding unfair competition does not require prior U.S. intellectual property registration.

 

What is the Essence of OpenAI’s Violations in the Context of ChatGPT’s Operations?

Just like your work, my creations constitute intellectual property. I have the right to derive profit from my works: publications attract clients, generate traffic, and create potential revenue. This lawsuit focuses on unfair competition, wherein OpenAI utilizes my work without authorization to train its models, such as ChatGPT. Consequently, users—including paying subscribers—gain access to derivative content based on my original ideas without my consent, thereby undermining my market position.

Simultaneously, I have been working on implementing payment processing (Apple Pay or similar) to monetize the site, allowing readers to access premium content on a paid basis, including payments from the United States. However, I have reserved the claim for direct unfair competition (with evidence of specific financial harm) for a future stage—to be filed after the payment system is fully operational.

My primary objective was to confirm the fundamental copyright violations and then transition to a full-scale competition lawsuit, where ChatGPT directly competes with my website by extracting profit from my content.

This strategy is inspired by successful U.S. legal precedents where authors and media outlets are seeking protection from AI companies. For example, in the consolidated class action of authors (including John Grisham and George R.R. Martin) against OpenAI, the court refused to dismiss copyright infringement claims, recognizing that using works to train Large Language Models (LLMs) may constitute a violation. Similarly, The New York Times filed suit against OpenAI and Microsoft for using millions of articles for training, demanding the destruction of the models and billions of dollars in statutory damages. These cases highlight that if ongoing harm is proven, courts may issue injunctions to halt the violations.

Ultimately, the essence of OpenAI’s violations lies in the fact that ChatGPT has absorbed my publications into its models and provides them to users (for free or for a fee), depriving me of income and creating an unfair market advantage. This is not merely copying; it is a systemic violation that can and must be stopped through the U.S. Federal Court system.

 

The Basis of the Claims Against OpenAI: A Simple Explanation of the ChatGPT Problem

I understand that many of you are not technical engineers, and it can be difficult to articulate the essence of the problem in this field. I will attempt to explain everything in plain language so that it is easily understood.

As is well known, OpenAI’s flagship product is ChatGPT, which utilizes a variety of models (e.g., GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o, and their variations). In other words, there are "legacy" models and more advanced, current versions.

ChatGPT functions as follows: it "absorbs" massive volumes of data into its "weights" (model parameters) and then provides its "knowledge" to users in response to queries. It is crucial to distinguish between generation—the creation of something new, a previously untrodden path resulting in a masterpiece (at least for the author)—and the creation of copies or plagiarism.

 

What is the core of the problem?

As an author, you have the right to create a brilliant product, but you do not have the right to copy someone else's work, pass it off as your own, and profit from it. When we create intellectual property and make it public, we expect it to be protected. In the AI era, this has become nearly impossible. Of all existing systems, ChatGPT is the one that has been proven, through analysis, to copy original publications and present them as its own results for profit.

Imagine a street at night. The streetlights represent the paths cleared by others. This light is either public domain information available for use (including by OpenAI) or copyrighted publications that are prohibited from use without consent—especially if OpenAI is building its market dominance upon them.

True "generation," in a technical sense, refers to those dark, unlit sections of the street where no one has walked before. That should be the "masterpiece" of the author or the product of ChatGPT.

However, the problem is that OpenAI’s leadership’s claims regarding the "generation" of new content are often far from the truth. I have proven the fact (supported by notarial protocols): ChatGPT uses unauthorized content to generate profit worldwide. The system "absorbs" original publications, resells them to paid users, and generates SEO products to empower competitors with copies of my work. Furthermore, the system utilizes the personal data of the plaintiff and, consequently, of U.S. citizens.

As a result:

• Authors are stripped of their creations, which ChatGPT presents as its own.
• OpenAI derives direct profit from this exploitation.
• The company arms the author’s competitors by providing copies of publications for SEO promotion.
• Personal data is used without any form of consent.

Is this "lighting a dark street"—creating something that never existed? Certainly not.

The problem is that OpenAI is using this path to force out both individual authors and other AI market participants: Google (Gemini), Anthropic (Claude), xAI (Grok), Meta (Llama), DeepSeek, Alibaba (Qwen), Baidu (Ernie), Tencent (Hunyuan), Mistral AI, Perplexity AI, Cohere, NVIDIA, Hugging Face, Databricks (MosaicML), and Stability AI.

This practice has already sparked a wave of litigation in the U.S. For instance, in the consolidated case In re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, the courts have refused to dismiss claims. This allows plaintiffs to proceed to the discovery stage and demand millions of ChatGPT logs to prove violations. These precedents show that courts recognize that training on copyrighted materials without consent is an infringement, especially if the outputs are substantially similar to the originals.

I see this as a direct threat: OpenAI is not only suppressing content creators and major AI players but also us, the "small" participants, by monopolizing the market through unfair practices. This is not innovation—it is exploitation.

 

A Hereditary Disease: Why Neural Network Contamination Requires a Full Restart

How does OpenAI’s AI actually function? The training process is not a simple "reading" of data; it is an irreversible absorption of information into the model's weights. The information becomes part of the system's "digital DNA." When a user makes a request, ChatGPT either provides data directly from a website (including cases where the owner has explicitly forbidden copying) or generates a response from its internal weights, which were built upon someone else’s content.

 

The Fundamental Difference from Search Engines (Google):

A browser or search engine is merely a navigator. Google does not replace the source; it provides a path to it. This is vital for the intellectual property economy. When a user visits an author's site, the author receives traffic, leads, sales, and advertising revenue.

ChatGPT, however, acts as a "parasitic intermediary." It presents original publications as its own answers, effectively forcing content creators out of the market. Authors lose their audience and their income because the AI exploits their life's work without consent. When a complaint is filed, OpenAI attempts to hide the evidence by implementing superficial filters. However, the very existence of these filters is a direct admission that a systemic violation is occurring.

 

The Regurgitation Phenomenon and "Digital Theft":

By indexing original content, ChatGPT assimilates it. This leads to regurgitation—the reproduction of copyrighted materials without attribution. This happens because the AI identifies patterns in its weights and presents them as "generation."

This raises a critical question: will the next version of ChatGPT be "clean"?

The answer is a categorical NO.

New models are trained on data generated or collected by older models. This leads to the iterative self-poisoning of the system (model collapse / data contamination). Any new version will inevitably be "contaminated" with the intellectual property and personal data stolen during previous stages.

 

Why Filters are an Illusion of Protection

OpenAI’s attempt to restrict the output of copyrighted content through filters is akin to trying to catch minnows in the ocean with a large-mesh net. "Tails," "fins," and isolated fragments of an author's work inevitably slip through the responses. Regurgitation bypasses any software-based patches.

The only way to eliminate the unlawful distribution of copyrighted publications and the leakage of private citizen data is not through cosmetic filters—the ineffectiveness of which I have proven empirically—but through a total restart of ChatGPT models (Retraining from scratch).

 

The Mask of "Generation"

It is impossible to eliminate the reuse of an author's labor through standard programming methods. Even if a filter blocks direct quoting, the AI provides an answer by changing the structure while preserving the author's "logical path."

Example: Consider the sequence 1+2+3=6. This is a unique sequence created by the author. ChatGPT, attempting to bypass filters, outputs: 3+1+2=6. The result is the same, the structure is identical, and the value is stolen, even though the sequence was altered. OpenAI calls this "generation," but in reality, it is the manipulation of a third-party product that has not lost its legal protection.

This issue is already the subject of numerous lawsuits in the U.S., where courts recognize regurgitation as a direct copyright violation. OpenAI officially labels this a "rare bug," but independent research confirms that even the latest models (GPT-4o) reproduce protected content with startling accuracy, especially when subjected to jailbreaking (manipulative prompts).

 

Comparative Table of Systemic Risks

1. Regurgitation (Reproduction of Content)

The Problem: ChatGPT outputs copyrighted material and presents it as the AI’s "own" original product.
Why Filters Fail: They are designed to catch direct matches but fail to identify paraphrases, specific code snippets, or underlying logical structures (often called the "fish in the net" effect).
The Only Solution: A full restart of the models, strictly excluding all "contaminated" data from the training process.

2. Model Inheritance

The Problem: New AI versions are trained on datasets derived from older, "poisoned" versions, creating a cycle of infringement.
Why Filters Fail: Iterative training permanently embeds violation patterns into the model’s architecture, making them impossible to "filter out" later.
The Only Solution: Complete retraining from scratch using only verified, clean datasets.

3. Author Displacement

The Problem: Total monetization of third-party Intellectual Property (IP) without the consent of the creators or any financial compensation.
Why Filters Fail: Unlike Google Search, these models lack a built-in attribution mechanism (direct links) to credit the original sources.
The Only Solution: Court Injunctions and statutory damages to enforce legal boundaries.

4. Personal Data

The Problem: The unauthorized collection and storage of sensitive personal information without a proper legal basis.
Why Filters Fail: Filters typically only block direct matches (like a specific ID number); they cannot prevent "data inference," where the AI reconstructs private info through context.
The Only Solution: Guaranteed deletion of data from both the training sets and the model weights.

 

Architectural Intoxication and the Digital Contamination Chain

The ChatGPT system is not an isolated software product—it is the foundation upon which Microsoft’s entire modern corporate strategy is built. Since 2019, these companies have functioned as a single technological organism. Microsoft does not merely act as an investor having committed $135 billion; it is the exclusive provider of the Azure cloud infrastructure, without which OpenAI could not exist. This symbiosis has resulted in any "contamination" of OpenAI’s base models instantly becoming a systemic intoxication of the entire Microsoft ecosystem.

Thus, OpenAI has transformed from a strategic symbiont into a destructive parasite within the Microsoft ecosystem.

The global data contamination process began with the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models, which irreversibly absorbed the Plaintiff’s copyrighted content, including 1159 unique publications and Personally Identifiable Information (PII). These "poisoned weights" were inherited by subsequent versions through transfer learning and fine-tuning. Every new iteration, including GPT-5.2 (released in December 2025), was not cleansed of violations but merely layered new data onto a defective foundation.

As a result of this "genetic" inheritance, defective algorithms have been embedded into critical commercial products: Microsoft 365 Copilot, GitHub, Azure OpenAI Service, and the Windows operating system itself. Today, the same stolen content is reproduced in hundreds of millions of corporate responses daily across the globe.

 

Legal Collapse and Fictitious Capitalization

From a legal standpoint, a product architecturally incapable of preventing the unauthorized distribution of third-party intellectual property and personal data has zero value. In jurisdictions governed by the rule of law, such as the U.S. and the EU, such assets cannot be legally exploited or licensed. This means that Microsoft’s multi-billion dollar investments in OpenAI are legally worthless.

Under international financial reporting standards (ASC 350 / IAS 36), such assets are subject to a full write-off (impairment), as their use is fraught with uncontrollable legal risks and inevitable class-action lawsuits.

However, the path to recognizing this reality is blocked by a wall of alleged corporate fraud. Deloitte LLP, acting as Microsoft’s external auditor, was obligated to conduct a deep technical (forensic) audit of OpenAI’s products. Despite having official notices of violations, the auditor ignored "red flags" and chose to issue a "clean" audit opinion for the 2025–2026 fiscal year. In my opinion, this constitutes not just a professional error, but deliberate gross negligence and aiding and abetting securities fraud. By certifying the value of "poisoned" assets, Deloitte is misleading millions of shareholders and regulators, artificially maintaining Microsoft’s capitalization at an unreachable level.

 

Call to Justice and Regulatory Intervention

The current situation transcends a private corporate dispute and touches upon U.S. National Security. We are dealing with massive, continuous, and architecturally embedded data contamination that Deloitte is attempting to legitimize with its report. The precedents of Equifax and SolarWinds pale in comparison to the scale of this scheme. Therefore, I have demanded that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) immediately block Deloitte’s 2026 audit opinion and appoint an independent technical forensic examination of OpenAI’s model weights.

 

Injunctive Relief (Securing the Claim)

In the federal process (pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), there are two primary stages of injunctive relief:

• TRO (Temporary Restraining Order): Issued for a very short term (usually up to 14 days). In exceptional cases, it can be obtained ex parte (without notice to the defendant) if you prove that delay will cause immediate, irreparable harm.
• Preliminary Injunction: The primary form of "security." It remains in effect throughout the litigation until a final decision is reached. A full hearing is required to obtain this.

Often, this method of securing claims is not utilized in the U.S. due to the requirement of posting a bond to protect the defendant's rights, as an injunction may restrict the defendant’s business activities.

In Kazakhstan, it is entirely different: if you show that enforcing a court decision will be difficult, the court in most cases grants the motion for security. Most importantly, the court does not demand highly rigorous evidence; the mere fact of filing the lawsuit is interpreted in the plaintiff's favor. Furthermore, the issue of a bond (security deposit) is non-existent in Kazakhstan: you simply attach the motion to the complaint, the court grants it, and you send the order for compulsory enforcement.

In the U.S., the burden of proof is much higher: when filing a motion for a preliminary injunction, you must prove that the absence of such an order will lead to a violation of rights or make the final judgment unenforceable. You must provide evidence, and if the court grants the motion, it typically imposes a requirement on you to post a bond, and only then is the injunction enforced.

Once again, we see that U.S. courts treat the protection of a plaintiff's rights with extreme restraint, even when the very reason for seeking the court's help is the defendant's unlawful actions or omissions.

 

Why are we addressing the definition of Injunctive Relief?

The fact of the matter is that our primary objective—as stated previously—is to extract the absolute maximum leverage from our court filing. This means, first, protecting your rights by submitting a meticulously drafted complaint, and second, securing a dominant position from the very moment of filing by exposing OpenAI’s violations at the earliest stage of the proceedings.

I wish to emphasize: our goal is to convince the court that while OpenAI may engage in commercial activity, from the moment this lawsuit is filed, such activity must be conducted strictly as a "Good Faith Business Practice." In a claim for Unfair Competition, the very act of filing implies that OpenAI must cease its unfair practices if the infringement of the plaintiff's rights is of an ongoing nature.

It is vital to establish your position in a U.S. court as being maximally advantageous from the outset. Furthermore, as you have likely realized, our objective is to suspend the operation of ChatGPT if it continues to violate the plaintiff's rights after the legal process has commenced.

 

The Balancing Act: Small Business vs. Big Tech

When considering a motion for injunctive relief, the court inevitably faces a critical question: Which takes precedence—the business activity of a "small" plaintiff, or the unfair practices of a giant like OpenAI?

Logically, the answer should favor the plaintiff, as good-faith business activity a priori holds priority over a defendant's bad-faith or unfair practices. However, the reality in the United States is more complex. U.S. courts are extremely cautious about suspending the operations of a commercial entity—even if that entity is violating someone else's rights—especially when the defendant is a major corporation responsible for massive employment and tax revenue.

The "One Dollar" Strategy: A Tactical Innovation
Because of this judicial restraint, I found it necessary to develop a position that achieves three things simultaneously:

1.      Satisfies the requirements for an injunction;

2.      Secures a dominant position to protect my business from the moment of filing;

3.      Provides the court with grounds to believe that the injunction will not unduly disrupt OpenAI's legitimate business operations.

To this end, I believe I have chosen the most advantageous scenario: requesting the court to impose a fine for violating the injunction at a rate of exactly $1 per day of non-compliance.

What does this "One Dollar" request achieve?

This is the most critical part: it allows us to legally secure a prohibition on ChatGPT’s infringing operations while offering the court a "low-friction" way to grant the injunction at an early stage. Once the injunction is in place, we can conduct the litigation calmly and without haste for up to five years. During this entire period, the world will know that ChatGPT is officially "contaminated."

I believe this is a maximally strategic position. it allows the court to protect the rights of the plaintiff (and, by extension, the rights of U.S. citizens, as I intend to prove through expert testimony that the scope of violations is far broader), significantly increasing the likelihood that the motion for injunctive relief will be granted.

Below, you may review the draft motion for injunctive relief. I am being entirely transparent and putting all my "strategic cards" on the table.

Note: The filing of this lawsuit is scheduled for August 2026, following the completion of the audit by Deloitte. If you are interested in participating or collaborating, please reach out. Samples of the complaints and motions are provided below.

 

 

Ref. No. 09/10

Dated October 09, 2025

To:
OpenAI Limited Partnership, Legal Department (legal@openai.com)
To:
Microsoft Corporation, Legal Department (mslegal@microsoft.com) (I require OpenAI to also independently notify its investor, Microsoft Corporation)
From:
Samat Serikovich Sagidanov, Attorney at Law, Owner of the G+ Trademark and www.garantplus.kz Website
Date:
October 09, 2025
 

Subject: URGENT NOTICE OF PAYWALL IMPLEMENTATION, WILLFUL CONTINUATION OF INFRINGEMENT, AND DIRECT COMMERCIAL SUBSTITUTION

Dear Representatives of OpenAI Limited Partnership and Microsoft Corporation,

  This letter serves as the final formal notice before filing the Complaint and the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

1. Confirmation of Continuing Infringement and Systemic Lack of Communication

Through numerous previous letters, I have comprehensively informed you of the unlawful "ingestion" of my original content into your Large Language Models (LLMs) and its subsequent unauthorized use in your products, including ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Bing Chat.

As you are aware, these infringements are confirmed by notarized protocols and attached evidence. However, you have failed to engage in constructive communication and have willfully continued the infringements, thereby demonstrating systematic bad faith.

2. Notice of Paywall Implementation and Direct Commercial Harm

In view of the ongoing unauthorized use of my content, I have been forced to implement a paid subscription model (paywall) for viewing publications on the website www.garantplus.kz (see Exhibit 2).

I hereby notify you that, as of October 09, 2025, my intellectual labor possesses a direct, quantifiable market value.

Given that you provide your data for a fee (including through ChatGPT Plus and paid Azure OpenAI services), and this data is derived from my publications ingested into your model, your action constitutes a DIRECT COMMERCIAL SUBSTITUTION of my new paid product. This is causing immediate and demonstrable commercial harm to my enterprise.

3. Reinforced Accusation and Technical Impossibility

We are also aware of direct evidence that you implemented temporary restrictions with the aim of evading liability, but these restrictions were subsequently lifted, which serves as additional evidence of willful continuation of infringement.

As detailed in the enclosed Declaration, the technical architecture of your LLMs renders the selective excision of my content impossible without a full "Restart" or deactivation of the entire model. Consequently, you lack the technical ability to cease the infringement other than by completely suspending the operation of your product.

4. Concluding Demand

Based on the foregoing, I officially notify you that:

1.      Your actions constitute willful infringement.

2.      The paywall I implemented renders the harm inflicted by you direct and measurable.

In this regard, if you intend to pursue an out-of-court settlement, please notify me within 10 days.

For communications regarding settlement, please use WhatsApp at +7-702-847-80-20. I require prior notification of any call or video conference so that I may engage a qualified English language interpreter.

I enclose the Declaration confirming these facts and a screenshot of the website demonstrating the implemented paywall.

Sincerely,

Samat Serikovich Sagidanov, Attorney at Law

Representing himself pro se in the U.S.

Attachments:

1.      Declaration of Samat Serikovich Sagidanov in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

2.      Screenshot of www.garantplus.kz website, confirming the implementation of the paid subscription.

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

 

Plaintiff:         Sagidanov Samat Serikovich

Legal and mailing address: 010000, Astana, Baraeva st. 13 apt. 135, Kazakhstan

Mobile: +7-702-847-80-20 (WhatsApp)

Email: garantplus.kz@mail.ru

(hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, acting pro se, who engages in business activities based on providing legal services), Pro Se

 

Defendant:     OpenAI Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the defendant and/or OpenAI, Inc.)

Legal address: 3180 18th Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, United States

Website: https://www.openai.com

Principal business: research and development in the field of artificial intelligence, including language models (GPT), multimodal models (e.g., ChatGPT, DALL·E), Codex, OpenAI API, and other products.

 

Defendant:     Microsoft Corporation

Legal address: 555 California St, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94104, United States

Website: https://www.microsoft.com

Phone: +1 (800) 642-7676

Principal business: provision of software, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence products and services, including Microsoft Azure and integration of AI-related solutions in partnership with OpenAI.

 

COMPLAINT

For Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin/Endorsement Under §43(a) of the Lanham Act and Common Law

 

This lawsuit is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. This jurisdiction has proper grounds to hear this case concerning both the Defendants and the location where a portion of the harm occurred, which is based on the following interrelated factors:

1. Personal Jurisdiction based on the Defendants’ Location and Activities:

• Defendant OpenAI Limited Partnership, although registered in Delaware, has its main operational office in San Francisco, California. This is where the core engineering teams and leadership are concentrated, determining the strategy for the training, development, and use of artificial intelligence models, including ChatGPT, which is the subject of this dispute. A significant part of OpenAI's commercial activities, including the development, operation, and maintenance of products like ChatGPT, is conducted within the Northern District of California.
• Defendant Microsoft Corporation, registered in Washington State, conducts a significant portion of its business in California, including numerous offices, divisions, and data centers. Furthermore, its subsidiary, GitHub, Inc., is registered and operates in San Francisco. Microsoft is the developer and operator of the Azure OpenAI Service cloud platform, which is available and actively marketed in California and uses the same underlying models as ChatGPT. The products and services that are the subject of this lawsuit—ChatGPT and derivative solutions such as Bing Chat, GitHub Copilot, and Microsoft Copilot—are available and actively used by consumers and companies located in California. (These conclusions are supported by the following: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI; 2) https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2025-06-01/theres-one-bright-spot-for-san-franciscos-office-space-market-openai-databricks-nvidia; 3) https://sfstandard.com/2024/09/20/open-ai-expands-in-mission-bay/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/openai-leaving-california-21039300.php; 4) https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hub/locations; 5) https://www.wrtdesign.com/projects/microsoft-silicon-valley-campus-2; 6) https://www.clay.com/dossier/github-headquarters-office-locations; 7) https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/education/blog/2024/09/uc-berkeley-enhances-computer-science-education-with-azure-openai-service; 8) https://www.clay.com/dossier/github-headquarters-office-locations; 9) https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/s-f-github-renews-lease-18670310.php; 10) https://www.wired.com/story/github-tech-values; 11) https://it.ucsf.edu/news-events/news/chatgptopen-ai-usage-ucsf; 12) https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/education/blog/2024/09/uc-berkeley-enhances-computer-science-education-with-azure-openai-service.

2. Venue Based on the Location of the Wrongful Acts (Nexus of the Wrong):

The key violations, including acts of unfair competition and false designation of origin of the Plaintiff’s content in ChatGPT and the Defendants’ other services, were committed through infrastructure and via business operations centralized and/or managed from California. The creation and distribution of a product that operates (in the Plaintiff's subjective judgment) as a "digital parasite" takes place in this jurisdiction. Therefore, California is the location where the main legally significant events that caused the alleged harm to the Plaintiff occurred, including consumer disorientation, brand dilution, and loss of identity control (see https://openai.com/ru-RU/policies/oct-2024-eu-terms).

3. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Applicable Law:

The Northern District of California Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims of unfair competition both under §43(a) of the Lanham Act and based on California Common Law. California law is known for its strong protection of fair competition and regulation of unfair competition issues, making this judicial district the most suitable for the effective resolution of this dispute and the protection of the Plaintiff's rights.

4. Efficiency and Expediency Confirmed by Precedents:

The choice of this jurisdiction ensures the most efficient and fair consideration of the case, given the concentration of evidence, witnesses, and experts related to artificial intelligence technologies and unfair competition in this region. Furthermore, the Federal Court for the Northern District of California is already actively considering and managing a number of similar cases against the Defendants, including:

• Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc. (3:23-cv-03223-AMO), a consolidated class action that, among other things, includes claims for unfair competition (California UCL). The consolidation of several related cases under this number (including Silverman et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al.) demonstrates the Court's ability to effectively centralize and manage complex disputes concerning AI models.
• A.S. v. OpenAI LP et al. (3:2024-cv-01190) and DENIAL et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al. (3:2025-cv-05495), where Microsoft is also included as a co-defendant. These cases confirm the Court's practice of establishing personal jurisdiction over Microsoft in similar disputes.

Therefore, choosing this Court facilitates the proper administration of justice and the resolution of the dispute in a jurisdiction that has a deep understanding of the complex technological and legal issues underlying this case.

Based on the foregoing and in accordance with the provisions of §1391(b)(2) (District in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred) and (c)(2) (Corporate defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in that district) of Title 28 U.S. Code, as well as the provisions of the Lanham Act providing protection against unfair competition and false designation of origin, this Federal Court has proper jurisdiction to hear this case.

 
Jurisdiction and Applicability of U.S. Law
The Plaintiff asserts that the Court has all the necessary grounds to hear this case and apply United States law, including §43(a) of the Lanham Act, as well as the rules of California Common Law. These grounds arise from the direct and proven effect of the Defendants' actions on commerce in the U.S.

1. Establishing Jurisdiction and Applicability of Law through Proven U.S. Visits:

• Direct connection between the Defendants and the U.S. market. Although the Plaintiff's website www.garantplus.kz is in the domain zone of the Republic of Kazakhstan, there is irrefutable evidence that the Defendants' products, used in the United States, have a direct impact on it. As the Plaintiff has established, U.S. citizens, while located in the United States, visited specific publications on the Plaintiff's website (see Exhibit, page __). Furthermore, these U.S. citizens visited precisely the publications for which the Plaintiff has identified unfair competition violations by the Defendants. Thus, there is a direct causal link between the violations by ChatGPT, in the unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's publications with the misrepresentation of the Plaintiff's consent to use his content and the "G+" trademark, the direct visits from the U.S. to the Plaintiff's publications for which violations by ChatGPT were identified, and the protectability of the Plaintiff's publications. Evidence of visits from the U.S. is provided in the form of Google Analytics data (see Exhibit, page __).
• Evidence of traffic from the Defendants’ products. The connection between visits from the U.S. and the Defendants' products is confirmed by the URL address bar, which contains the referral ?utm_source=chatgpt.com. This tag unequivocally indicates that the site traffic originated directly from the ChatGPT chatbot, which is confirmed by the notarized screenshots provided (see Exhibit, page __). Key Conclusion: The fact that American consumers are being directed to the Plaintiff's content through the Defendants' products demonstrates that the Defendants' actions have an effect on commerce in the U.S. This gives the Court full authority to hear this lawsuit and apply American law to the Defendants, who are California-based companies, including §43(a) of the Lanham Act, which protects against consumer deception in the United States, and California Common Law.

2. Application of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act:

The lawsuit is based on unfair competition and false designation of origin, which falls directly under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The application of this law in the present case is justified by evidence, expert opinions, and precedent:

• Distortion of Origin (False Designation of Origin / Reverse Passing Off)

o    ChatGPT, as well as the Defendants' derivative products (Copilot, Azure OpenAI Service), provide users with content adapted from the Plaintiff's publications, including the preservation of the semantics, structure, unique authorial markers, and marketing function.

o    The lack of any indication of the original source or the Plaintiff's contact information, coupled with the Plaintiff's ability to generate profit, creates a false impression that the content is "generated" by the Defendants, meaning it is their own product. According to the linguistic analysis, "generation" means the independent creation of a product by the defendants without the plaintiff's participation. The majority of users, who lack technical knowledge, also define "generation" as the creation of a product by the defendants without the plaintiff's participation (see Exhibit).

o    Given the growth of ChatGPT users (over 800 million) and the data from the valuation report, there is a real threat of client loss and monetization for the Plaintiff, which confirms the direct causal link of the harm.

o    The Defendants' actions fit the classic model of reverse passing off, where others' works are presented as their own, which falls under § 43(a) (see Waldman Publishing Corp. v. Landoll, Inc., 43 F.3d 775, 2d Cir. 1994).

o    The use of protected elements, including the © sign and the author's name "lawyer S.S. Sagidanov", without the Plaintiff's consent, confirms the systematic nature of the violation and rules out arguments about a "minor" or "unintentional" act.

• False and Misleading Representations

o    The Defendants position their products as "generating" unique content, which is an objective and verifiable statement, not a subjective marketing puffery.

o    Linguistic and technical expertise confirm that ChatGPT actually adapts existing materials of the Plaintiff rather than creating original content, which makes the Defendants' marketing statements false and misleading.

o    According to the linguistic analysis, the Plaintiff’s publications have authorial originality and creative uniqueness, meaning they do not constitute public information or well-known facts. These materials fall under the protection of copyright in accordance with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which automatically extends to a foreign author, including protection in the United States. The analysis confirms that the Plaintiff's texts contain unique semantic, structural, and marketing elements, the use of which by third parties without the copyright holder’s consent is a direct copyright infringement and creates a false impression about the origin of the content (reverse passing off), which falls under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

o    These actions create an illegal commercial advantage for the Defendants, attracting millions of users and investors, while simultaneously undermining the market value of the Plaintiff's works (see POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014); Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992)).

• Causation and Commercial Harm (Likelihood of Damage)

o    The Plaintiff has direct evidence of commercial harm: 6,002 visits from the U.S. to the website, a reduced ability to attract clients, and the loss of future monetization of the content.

o    The scale of ChatGPT's use—over 800 million users worldwide, including in the U.S.—creates a substantial effect on U.S. commerce, which fully meets the requirements for the extraterritorial application of § 43(a) (see Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952); McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005)).

o    Expert opinions confirm that the Defendants' false statements directly undermine the Plaintiff's ability to develop his business and protect his brand, creating an unlawful market advantage.

• Transnational Application and Protection of Small Businesses

o    The Defendants’ actions, although partially occurring outside the U.S., are aimed at the American market and have a substantial effect on U.S. commerce, which justifies the application of the Lanham Act to a foreign plaintiff.

o    Even a limited number of U.S. users (6,002 visits) is sufficient grounds for jurisdiction, as the law protects small businesses from consumer deception and unfair competition (see Steele v. Bulova Watch Co.).

o    Technical expertise confirms that ChatGPT has absorbed the Plaintiff's publications, creating a threat of global use of the Plaintiff's content for profit among over 800 million users.

• Conclusion and Legal Effect

o    All three key elements of § 43(a)—commercial use, false designation of origin, and likelihood of damage—are documented and confirmed.

o    The Defendants' actions represent a systematic deception of millions of users, which creates a global competitive advantage at their expense.

o    The Court should find the Defendants' actions to be a violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and establish appropriate protective measures, including injunction, damages, and corrective advertising.

3. Application of California Common Law and Procedural Aspect
California Common Law provides independent mechanisms for protection against unfair competition, which operate in parallel with § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The applicability of these norms is due to the fact that the Defendants conduct their main activities in California, which ensures the Court's personal jurisdiction.

1. Common Law Unfair Competition Doctrine

• California Common Law protects commercial interests from unfair or misleading actions.
• The Defendants' actions fall squarely into this category: the concealment of the Plaintiff's content source, authorship, and contact information creates a risk of misleading consumers in the U.S.
• These actions cause direct and potential harm to the Plaintiff, including loss of clients, reduced content monetization, and brand reputation damage.

2. Element of Consumer Deception

• The willful and systematic concealment of the source of the Plaintiff's copyrighted content and the lack of contact information create a clear threat of misleading American consumers.
• California case law recognizes that even partial misinformation about the origin of a product or content violates the doctrine of unfair competition (see, e.g., Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002)).

3. No Requirement for U.S. Copyright Registration

• For asserting claims of unfair competition and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, U.S. copyright registration is not required.
• The lawsuit is aimed at protecting the brand, reputation, and source of content from unlawful use. The goal is to prevent the further dissemination of the Plaintiff's adapted or copied content and to protect his business, not to claim monetary damages. The Plaintiff is not seeking a monetary award from the Defendants.
• This is consistent with precedents where U.S. courts recognize the right to protection against consumer deception and unfair competition regardless of formal copyright registration (FMC Corp. v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Indus. Co., 730 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1984)).

4. Procedural Aspect in the Context of the Civil Procedure Code of Kazakhstan

• According to Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, lawsuits against legal entities not located in Kazakhstan can only be filed at the location of the defendant.
• The Plaintiff cannot file claims in Kazakhstan because the Defendants are registered and operate in California, U.S. This justifies filing the lawsuit in a U.S. court, while ensuring the protection of the Plaintiff's interests, compliance with international jurisdiction requirements, and the Plaintiff's access to justice.

Conclusion:

• The Defendants' actions fall under the norms of California Common Law, creating a real risk of misleading consumers and the unlawful use of copyrighted content.
• The Court has full authority to apply the provisions of Common Law Unfair Competition to protect the Plaintiff and prevent further harm, considering the procedural limitations of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the international nature of the dispute.

I. PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
1. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___), it is reliably established that the "G+" Trademark is registered in the State Register of Trademarks of the Republic of Kazakhstan with the RSE "National Institute of Intellectual Property" of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Registration number 104928, date of registration 09/02/2025), for "Temnaya Loshadka" LLP. Subsequently, according to the attached domain name registration certificate (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___), this trademark is used on the www.garantplus.kz website, which is confirmed by the attached screenshots (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___). On the www.garantplus.kz website, Plaintiff Sagidanov Samat Serikovich, as an attorney engaged in business activities, publishes copyrighted materials in connection with providing services in the field of legal activities, which he carries out.

2. Subsequently, according to the Agreement on the Assignment of Right of Claim dated July 31, 2025 (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___), "Temnaya Loshadka" LLP (hereinafter — the "Assignor"), whose sole founder is the Plaintiff, assigned all rights of claim related to this lawsuit to the Plaintiff (the "Assignee").

3. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to protect both his bona fide business activities, in terms of protecting his publications, and to protect against the Defendants' unlawful use of the "G+" trademark and the www.garantplus.kz website. It is important to note that, although the Plaintiff's trademark and copyrighted publications are not registered in the United States, their protection is possible based on international and U.S. federal law.

4. In particular, the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications are protected by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works from the moment of their creation and publication. Article 5 (1) of the Berne Convention establishes the principle of national treatment, according to which authors enjoy the rights in the countries of the Union that the respective laws grant to their own citizens, without the need for any formalities. The United States is a party to this Convention, which ensures the protection of the Plaintiff's copyrights in the U.S. without the need for separate registration.

5. As for the "G+" trademark and the www.garantplus.kz website, despite the lack of registration in the U.S., their protection can be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention obligates member states to ensure effective protection against unfair competition. This includes acts capable of confusing the public in any way about the nature, manufacturing, properties, fitness for use, or quantity of a competitor's goods. Furthermore, § 43(a) of the Lanham Act provides a federal basis for claims of false designation of origin and unfair competition, even for unregistered trademarks and trade names, if their use may cause confusion or mislead consumers about the source of goods or services, or their affiliation with the owner. Since the www.garantplus.kz website is visited from the U.S., as confirmed by the attached notarized Google Analytics screenshots (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___), and the Defendants, according to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___), provide information through ChatGPT on a paid basis, meaning they derive profit from the unlawful use of the Plaintiff's content, their actions directly affect interstate commerce and create a false designation of origin/endorsement with respect to content that is in demand in the American market.

6. Thereby, the Defendants restrict the Plaintiff's business activities, misleading users about their rights to use the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications, the www.garantplus.kz website, and the "G+" trademark. The bona fide competition undertaken by the Plaintiff by publishing his materials in open access on the internet using the "G+" trademark has become impossible due to the Defendants' actions.

7. As a result of these actions, users of the Defendants' products (including, but not limited to, the ChatGPT chatbot) get a false impression that the Plaintiff has approved the use of his copyrighted publications and the www.garantplus.kz website as a source of information, as well as the "G+" trademark. In addition, the Plaintiff is deprived of the ability to provide information about himself to users through the ChatGPT chat because the Plaintiff's authorship and contact information are not indicated. Thus, the Defendants create a false association with the Plaintiff's materials, leading users to believe that the Plaintiff consented to the use of his intellectual property. This unauthorized use gives the Defendants an unfair competitive advantage, allowing them to use their dominant market position to provide access to the Plaintiff's publications and use his trademark without the corresponding permission. This unfair competition undermines the fundamental principles of fair competition, since the original source—the Plaintiff's website, his trademark, and his copyrighted publications—effectively lose their value and necessity for users who get access to similar information through the Defendants' products. The Defendants' actions constitute both a false designation of origin and misappropriation of the Plaintiff's significant investments in the creation and maintenance of original and valuable legal content, as well as his business reputation. The Defendants gratuitously profit from the labor, time, and financial resources invested by the Plaintiff, undermining his ability to compete and directly serve clients in his field. This represents the exploitation of the Plaintiff's business reputation and the creation of a monopoly on the dissemination of information created by the Plaintiff, effectively depriving the Plaintiff of the right to his investments. The Defendants use their monopolistic capabilities to alienate the rights holder from the end consumer. By engaging in unfair competition, the Defendants effectively monopolize the market, exploiting the Plaintiff's bona fide business activities and depriving him of the future ability to directly interact with clients and provide them with information through his own website. Thus, the very existence of the Plaintiff's website is called into question due to the interposition of the Defendants' products, despite the fact that the ChatGPT chatbot and other products of the Defendants are not the creators of this original content.

8. The Defendants' actions also constitute a misappropriation of the value created by the Plaintiff and an act of unfair competition in accordance with California common law. The Plaintiff invested significant time, effort, and financial resources in creating, compiling, and maintaining unique and valuable legal content on the www.garantplus.kz website, as well as in forming his brand's business reputation. The Defendants, using their dominant market position and the capabilities of their AI models, gratuitously appropriate the fruits of the Plaintiff's labor, reproducing and disseminating his content without permission and without corresponding compensation. This allows the Defendants to derive commercial benefit from another's investments and efforts, undermining the Plaintiff's competitiveness, and making his own website and direct channels of interaction with clients essentially unnecessary for end-users, since the latter get access to the information through the Defendants. Such behavior is not only unfair but also creates a "chilling effect" for other authors and entrepreneurs, undermining the incentives to create original content when its value can be freely appropriated by dominant platforms.

9. The Defendants' actions go beyond a simple copyright infringement and represent a classic example of misappropriation and reverse passing off, which is an independent basis for a lawsuit under U.S. law. Misappropriation is the use of another's labor and investments without permission, for the purpose of obtaining commercial benefit. The Defendants appropriate the Plaintiff's significant financial, time, and intellectual investments made in creating unique legal content on the www.garantplus.kz website. Using their dominant market position, they are effectively "reselling" the Plaintiff's labor. The Defendants' actions also fit the definition of reverse passing off, which U.S. courts consider a special form of unfair competition. This occurs when a defendant removes the author's name (the plaintiff) from their original works and presents them as their own. This is exactly what is happening: the Defendant "adapts" and distributes the Plaintiff's publications through their product, ChatGPT, without indicating the original source and the author, Sagidanov Samat Serikovich. As a result, users are misled into believing that the content is a product of artificial intelligence "generation," meaning it was created by the Defendant independently. This deception creates a false impression that the Defendant is the creator or source of this content, which undermines the Plaintiff's reputation and deprives him of the ability to monetize his materials. Thus, the Defendants not only violate the Plaintiff's rights but also distort the fundamental principles of fair competition, limiting the Plaintiff's ability to profit from his work.

Defendant’s Bad Faith: Willful Breach of the Duty to Preserve Evidence

The Defendant's procedural conduct since the inception of this dispute demonstrates a systematic avoidance of good faith dialogue and a willful disregard for fundamental procedural requirements. On October 14, 2025, the Plaintiff sent a Formal Notice to Implement a Legal Hold Notice (see Exhibit D, Ref. No. 14/10), which obligated the Defendant to immediately preserve all critical evidence related to the "ingestion" of the content and to provide written confirmation within 48 hours. As of October 17, 2025 (00:00 PT), no written confirmation or notification of the appointment of a responsible party (Custodian) was received. Consequently, on October 17, 2025, the Plaintiff was compelled to send the Declaration of Failure to Comply with Legal Hold Demand (see Exhibit E, Ref. No. 17/10), affirmed under penalty of perjury (Perjury). This Declaration formally documents the Willful Breach of the Duty to Preserve Evidence. The Defendant's deliberate failure to respond to an affirmed Declaration, which documented the risk of Spoliation (destruction of evidence), demonstrates the Defendant's intent to conceal critically important information regarding the copyright infringements. This conduct is a direct basis for demanding the most stringent judicial remedies, including the Adverse Inference Instruction, a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and Sanctions (See Attachment).

Grounds for the Lawsuit Regarding Unfair Competition and Misappropriation of Intellectual Labor
The Plaintiff is a practicing attorney in Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan, engaged in a commercial business of providing legal services for a fee.

These conclusions, that the Plaintiff is a practicing attorney engaged in a commercial business of providing legal services for a fee, are based on the attached extract from the Resolution of the Presidium of the Astana City Bar Association dated January 23, 2023, the attorney's ID of the Astana City Bar Association No. 1072, issued on January 25, 2023, and the state license for the right to engage in advocacy No. 0000650, issued by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan on April 20, 2006 (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___).

Thus, the attached documents directly confirm that the Plaintiff, Sagidanov Samat Serikovich, is a practicing attorney engaged in business activities.

The Plaintiff also receives a fee from his legal activities, meaning he conducts business through publications on the Garant Plus website. The Plaintiff's conclusions are based on the following documents:

1. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___), Legal Aid Agreement No. 051 dated April 19, 2024 (hereinafter - Agreement No. 051), concluded between attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich and "Zhol Invest 2022" LLP, it is established that attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich undertakes the Client’s request to provide legal assistance for a lawsuit against "Zhol Invest 2020" LLP for the recovery of a debt amount of 15,600,000 (fifteen million six hundred thousand) tenge, a penalty of 1,390,013 (one million three hundred ninety thousand thirteen) tenge, and court costs related to the payment of a state fee of 539,700 (five hundred thirty-nine thousand seven hundred) tenge.

In addition, according to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in Agreement No. 051, the Attorney undertakes the Client’s request to provide legal assistance for a lawsuit against "Zhol Invest 2022" LLP for the recovery of a prepayment amount paid under the contract, in the amount of 23,573,600 (twenty-three million five hundred seventy-three thousand six hundred) tenge, a penalty of 2,111,173 (two million one hundred eleven thousand one hundred seventy-three) tenge, and court costs related to the payment of a state fee of 770,543 (seven hundred seventy-two thousand five hundred forty-three) tenge and payment for representative services in the amount of 150,000 (one hundred fifty thousand) tenge.

2. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___), upon examination of Cash Receipt Order No. 051 dated April 20, 2024, it is confirmed that "Zhol Invest 2022" LLP paid 200,000 (two hundred thousand) tenge to attorney Sagidanov S.S.

3. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in the Resolution of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Almaty Regional Court dated October 29, 2024, it is established that the Decision of the Specialized Inter-district Economic Court of Almaty Region dated July 24, 2024, was overturned. A new decision was issued to deny the claim of "Serik Business Kurylys" Limited Liability Partnership against "Zhol Invest 2022" Limited Liability Partnership for the recovery of a prepayment in the amount of 23,573,600 (twenty-three million five hundred seventy-three thousand six hundred) tenge and a penalty of 2,111,173 (two million one hundred eleven thousand one hundred seventy-three) tenge. According to this Resolution, the representative of the defendant is Sagidanov S.S.

4. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in the Resolution of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Almaty Regional Court dated June 12, 2025, it is established that the decision of the Specialized Inter-district Economic Court of Almaty Region dated July 30, 2024, was left unchanged. According to this Resolution, the representatives of the defendant were Yembergenov B. and Sagidanov S.S.

5. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in Legal Aid Agreement No. 056 dated July 24, 2024 (hereinafter - Agreement No. 056), concluded between attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich and "Rich Brothers" LLP, it is established that attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich acts as a defense attorney (representative) in a civil case to provide representative services for the recovery from "Rich Brothers" LLP in favor of Sagadiyev I.M.

6. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in Cash Receipt Order No. 056 dated July 24, 2024, it is established that "Rich Brothers" LLP paid attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich 540,000 tenge.

7. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in the Decision of District Court No. 2 of the Almalinsky District of Almaty City dated August 19, 2024, it is established that the claim of Sagadiyev Ilyas Mnirovich against "Rich Brothers" (Rich Brozers) Limited Liability Partnership, Kenzhetay Asem Kenzhetaykyzy for the recovery of a sum was denied. Representative costs in the amount of 540,000 (five hundred forty thousand) tenge were recovered from Sagadiyev Ilyas Mnirovich in favor of "Rich Brothers" (Rich Brozers) Limited Liability Partnership. According to this Decision, the representative of the defendant "Rich Brothers" (Rich Brozers) LLP is Sagidanov Samat Serikovich.

8. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in the Additional Decision of District Court No. 2 of the Almalinsky District of Almaty City dated January 20, 2025, it is established that the request of the plaintiff Sagadiyev Ilyas Mnirovich against "Rich Brothers" (Rich Brozers) Limited Liability Partnership, Kenzhetay Asem Kenzhetaykyzy for declaring the training agreement void was denied. According to this Decision, the representative of the defendant "Rich Brothers" (Rich Brozers) LLP is Sagidanov Samat Serikovich.

9. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in the Resolution of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Almaty City Court dated April 7, 2025, it is established that the decision of District Court No. 2 of the Almalinsky District of Almaty City dated August 19, 2024, and the additional decision of District Court No. 2 of the Almalinsky District of Almaty City dated January 20, 2025, on this case were left unchanged, and the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed. According to this Resolution, the representative of the defendant "Rich Brothers" LLP is Sagidanov S.S.

10. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in Legal Aid Agreement No. 057 dated August 19, 2024 (hereinafter - Agreement No. 057), concluded between attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich and "Rich Brothers" LLP, it is established that attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich acts as a defense attorney (representative) in a civil case to provide representative services for the recovery from "Rich Brothers" LLP in favor of Dyusenbayev Darkhan Maratovich.

11. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in Cash Receipt Order No. 057 dated August 25, 2024, it is established that "Rich Brothers" LLP paid attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich 500,000 tenge.

12. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in the Decision of District Court No. 2 of the Almalinsky District of Almaty City dated October 30, 2024, it is established that the claim of Dyusenbayev Darkhan Maratovich against the defendants "Rich Brothers" LLP, Kenzhetay Asem Kenzhetaykyzy for the recovery of a monetary amount of 3,560,000 tenge and a penalty of 519,166 tenge was denied. According to this Decision, the representative of the defendant "Rich Brothers" (Rich Brozers) LLP is Sagidanov Samat Serikovich.

13. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in the Resolution of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Almaty City Court dated February 4, 2025, it is established that the Decision of District Court No. 2 of the Almalinsky District of Almaty City dated October 30, 2024, was left unchanged. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed. Costs for representative services in the amount of 407,916 (four hundred seven thousand nine hundred sixteen) tenge were recovered from Dyusenbayev Darkhan Maratovich in favor of "Rich Brothers" (Rich Brozers) LLP. According to this Resolution, the representative of the defendant "Rich Brothers" LLP is Sagidanov S.S.

14. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in Legal Aid Agreement No. 063 dated January 29, 2025 (hereinafter - Agreement No. 063), concluded between attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich and "Elektronnye Tekhnologii" LLP, it is established that attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich acts as a defense attorney (representative) in a civil case to provide representative services for the claim of the state-owned enterprise "ALMATY POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE" of the Education Department of Almaty City to declare a participant of public procurement as unfair and to recover a penalty.

15. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in Payment Order No. 17 dated January 29, 2025, it is established that payment was made for Agreement No. 063 in the amount of 400,000 tenge.

16. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in the Decision of the Specialized Inter-district Economic Court of Almaty City dated March 11, 2025, it is established that the lawsuit of the state-owned enterprise "ALMATY POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE" of the Education Department of Almaty City to declare "Elektronnye Tekhnologii" LLP an unfair participant in public procurement and to recover a penalty was fully denied. According to this Decision, the representative of the defendant is Sagidanov S.S.

17. According to (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) in the Act of Completed Works No. 1 dated May 19, 2025, it is established that legal services were rendered by Attorney Sagidanov S.S. to "Elektronnye Tekhnologii" LLP in the amount of 400,000 tenge under Agreement No. 063.

Thus, from the documents presented above, it is also confirmed that the Plaintiff Sagidanov Samat Serikovich is a practicing attorney and conducts business activities by providing legal services. The Plaintiff believes that to confirm these arguments, it would have been sufficient to provide only one example and only one piece of evidence from that example. For example, only the Legal Aid Agreement, or the payment, or the court decision. However, based on good faith and reasonableness, the Plaintiff believes that the totality of the submitted documents fully confirms the Plaintiff's arguments that the Plaintiff is a practicing attorney and conducts legal activities for a fee.

Furthermore, (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) a reference for the Court and sworn statements, confirm that "Zhol Invest 2022" LLP, "Rich Brothers" (Rich Brozers) LLP, and "Elektronnye Tekhnologii" LLP found the Plaintiff, attorney Sagidanov Samat Serikovich, through his copyrighted publications posted on the website www.garantplus.kz.

Thus, the Plaintiff believes he has provided sufficient information to show that the Plaintiff is a practicing attorney who performs legal work for a fee and conducts business activities through copyrighted publications posted on the www.garantplus.kz website. Moreover, the Plaintiff's clients find him through his copyrighted publications posted on the www.garantplus.kz website.

According to the attached screenshots (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) from the www.garantplus.kz website, the section https://garantplus.kz/kontakty lists the Plaintiff's direct contact information: mobile numbers +7-702-847-80-20, +7-747-392-19-58, and email address garantplus.kz@mail.ru.

Thus, clients found the Plaintiff and contacted him through his copyrighted publications posted on the www.garantplus.kz website, since the specified mobile numbers belong to the Plaintiff and are directly related to his professional activity.

(See Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) it is established that there are 1,159 copyrighted publications by the Plaintiff posted on the www.garantplus.kz website.

According to the attached notarized screenshot (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___), the Plaintiff is the author of 1,159 original publications posted on the www.garantplus.kz website. Thus, the Defendants' violations, expressed in copying, automated processing, and commercial use through ChatGPT, are massive, not isolated, for the Plaintiff.

These conclusions are also consistent with the technical expertise (see Exhibit No. ___, pages ___), where according to the expert's findings, it is established that from a technical perspective, large language models, such as ChatGPT, are trained on vast datasets of textual data. This necessitates a wide coverage of content used for their training. Consequently, if there was one violation of the Plaintiff's rights (for example, the use of one publication), then a violation actually occurred with respect to the entire volume of the Plaintiff's intellectual labor, since ChatGPT does not index only individual publications. If indexing did occur, the entire www.garantplus.kz website was indexed, meaning all 1,159 of the Plaintiff's original copyrighted publications, not just a single publication.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff is the original author and exclusive owner of the intellectual content created outside the United States.

(See Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) notarized screenshots, linguistic expertise, and technical expertise confirm that the Defendant unlawfully used the Plaintiff's works for commercial purposes without any consent.

(See Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) screenshots from the Defendant's website) the Defendants' actions are commercial in nature, as they provide users with both free and paid information/services through ChatGPT, which use the Plaintiff's content: https://chatgpt.com/pricing.

According to (attachments: screenshots from ChatGPT and the Plaintiff's website, as well as linguistic and technical expertise), the Defendants' actions include copying, adapting, and posting the Plaintiff's content, while the Defendant directly pointed to the Plaintiff as the source by indicating ?utm_source=chatgpt.com in the address bar when providing information, which is a direct referral to ChatGPT.

Such unauthorized indication creates a false impression of permission, cooperation, or affiliation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. This constitutes a false designation of origin and, equally, a false endorsement, as users may mistakenly believe that the Plaintiff has in some way approved or consented to the integration of his content into the Defendants' products, thereby indirectly lending them his expert legitimacy.

Moreover, these actions by the Defendant constitute a form of unfair competition in accordance with the principles of common law.

(See Exhibit No. ___, pages ___) screenshots from Google Analytics directly confirm that the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications on the www.garantplus.kz website were visited from the territory of the U.S.

The Plaintiff draws the Court's attention to the fact that he is not filing a claim for copyright infringement and is not seeking monetary compensation.

The purpose of this lawsuit is to obtain a judicial declaration of unfair competition and misappropriation of intellectual labor without the Plaintiff's consent, as well as to seek injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant's further unlawful use of his content.

Moreover, the Plaintiff notes that the recently discovered violations by the Defendants in adapting and using the Plaintiff's content through ChatGPT (see Exhibit), including the reappearance of direct referrals ?utm_source=chatgpt.com, pertain specifically to those copyrighted publications that showed significant traffic from the U.S. according to Google Analytics data. The Plaintiff provides notarized screenshots of these specific violations, which serve as additional direct evidence that the Defendants' actions directly affect the interests of consumers in the U.S. and create a false designation of origin/endorsement with respect to content in demand in the American market.

The Plaintiff draws the Court’s attention to the fact that the violations committed by the Defendants are not accidental or insignificant. They are directly related to their global business strategy aimed at monetizing data and gaining a competitive advantage through the labor of others. Sam Altman’s statements that more than 800 million people used ChatGPT in September 2025 clearly demonstrate that the Defendants’ success is due not only to their technology but also to the enormous amount of information that they, in the Plaintiff's opinion, have gratuitously appropriated.

Given that the technical expertise confirms the threat of the Plaintiff's publications being included in training datasets, these 800 million users have potentially had and have access to the Plaintiff's adapted content. Thus, the Defendants, under the pretext of "generating" content and engaging users, are actually ensuring the engagement of their colossal audience (including users in the U.S.) at the expense of the intellectual labor in which the Plaintiff has invested 25 years of his life.

This high level of engagement directly translates into commercial profit for the Defendants (in the form of paid subscriptions, partnerships, and investments) and at the same time devalues the Plaintiff's labor, depriving him of the opportunity to directly interact with his target audience and monetize his own content. The Plaintiff believes that the Court should consider these 800 million users not merely as a statistical figure, but as evidence of mass misappropriation that was made possible by the Defendants' misleading statements. This underscores the scale of the harm inflicted on the Plaintiff and demonstrates that the Defendants have gained an unlawful competitive advantage by exploiting the labor of entrepreneurs worldwide.

Introduction of Paid Model and Enhancement of Commercial Injury
On October 9, 2025, the Plaintiff formally transitioned to a commercial content monetization model on the website www.garantplus.kz, offering proprietary legal publications exclusively on a paid basis (via payment/subscription). The Plaintiff immediately and properly notified the Defendants of this material change and of the intent to strictly protect the commercially monetized content (see Exhibit №___).

Since receiving this notice, any further use, adaptation, reproduction, or distribution of the Plaintiff's materials within the Defendants' products—especially within their own paid or subscription services (such as ChatGPT Plus, Copilot Pro, etc.)—constitutes direct use in commerce and direct commercial competition with the Plaintiff's paid products. Such actions by the Defendants now clearly fall under the prohibition of Unfair Competition pursuant to §43(a) of the Lanham Act, as they mislead consumers regarding the source of the content and inflict direct commercial injury upon the Plaintiff.

Knowledge and Willfulness
Since the Defendants were officially notified of the commercial nature of the Plaintiff's materials, their continued actions cannot be qualified as unconscious or in good faith. The continued use of the content confirms the willful nature of the violations (willful infringement), which serves as an aggravating circumstance when assessing the possible amount of damages and the application of enforcement measures and sanctions.

Irreparable Harm
The use of the Plaintiff's materials in the Defendants' products after October 9, 2025, directly diminishes the Plaintiff's chance for successful monetization (subscriptions, sales, licensing), destroys the content's exclusivity, and effectively forces the Plaintiff out of the corresponding payment market.

Furthermore, the technical encapsulation of the disputed materials within the parameters of LLM models and current limitations of “unlearning” methods render the harm inflicted partially irreversible. This harm cannot be effectively compensated by monetary damages alone.

The Plaintiff emphasizes that due to the operational specifics of the Defendants (e.g., ChatGPT), once the Plaintiff's publications have been ingested during indexing, the subsequent use of the content becomes irreversible. Consequently, the introduction of simple filters and restrictions in no way guarantees 100% certainty of non-use and non-output of the Plaintiff's content. Thus, the only technically feasible and reliable way to halt the further use and output of the Plaintiff’s commercial content is a full model restart, or its retraining on “clean” data.

Given that the Defendants have not demonstrated an intention to execute such a radical measure as a full model restart, or its retraining on “clean” data, the harm inflicted is irreparable and continues to accrue. This irreparable nature of the harm justifies the urgent need for immediate judicial protection in the form of injunctive relief.

Creation, Commercial Value, and Purpose of the Plaintiff's Content
The paid content published by the Plaintiff on www.garantplus.kz represents exclusive, highly specialized legal analysis and procedural documents. This content possesses significant commercial value (significant commercial value) and was originally created with the explicit intent of commercial monetization through licensing, direct publication sales, and/or subscription.

Thus, the Plaintiff's materials were never intended for the public domain free of charge or for unauthorized use for commercial purposes by third parties.

Direct Commercial Integration and Substitutional Competition
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants did not merely use the disputed content for training their models, but also directly integrated its output into their paid and subscription products, such as ChatGPT Plus, Copilot Pro, and/or corporate services based on Microsoft Azure AI.

Regardless of whether this occurred before or after the Plaintiff's official notification of October 9, 2025, this integration constitutes a direct extraction of commercial gain at the expense of the Plaintiff's commercially valuable content, creating substitutional competition to its paid services.

Requests for Relief, Including Injunctive Relief
In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff requests the Court to consider the appended motions in an expedited manner and to:

1.      Issue a Temporary Restraining Order / Preliminary Injunction immediately prohibiting the further use, adaptation, reproduction, and output of the Plaintiff's paid content in the Defendants' products.

2.      Order the Defendants to preserve and provide the Plaintiff, under the discovery procedure, all logs, metadata, and documents relating to the indexing, training, and use of the Plaintiff's materials.

 
Critical Assessment of Defendants' Actions in Light of Case Law
The Plaintiff requests the Court to critically evaluate the Defendants' actions aimed at concealing their violations, in light of judicial decisions made in similar cases.

1. Defendants' Actions Aimed at Concealing Violations

The Plaintiff draws the Court's attention to the systematic and deliberate nature of the Defendants' actions, which are intended to conceal the facts of their unlawful use of the Plaintiff’s content.

After the initial pre-litigation claim was sent to legal@openai.com, the Defendants imposed temporary restrictions on ChatGPT's functionality, hiding direct links to the Plaintiff's website. These findings are consistent with the attached screenshots and technical expertise. However, subsequent checks, confirmed by notarized screenshots, show that the Defendants have again removed these restrictions (see Exhibit, page ____). ChatGPT continues to adapt and use the Plaintiff's publications without authorization, accompanying responses with direct links or mentioning the website garantplus.kz and the "G+" trademark as the source.

This behavior—imposing restrictions after a claim and then later removing them—is direct evidence of a conscious disregard for the Plaintiff's legitimate demands and an attempt to mislead both users and, potentially, the Court.

2. Analogy with the Case of The New York Times v. OpenAI

The Defendants' pattern of behavior, aimed at concealing data, is not unique to this case. It aligns with the behavior documented during the litigation of The New York Times v. OpenAI, which is being heard in the same district.

• Data Preservation Precedent. In May 2025, the Court ordered OpenAI to preserve and isolate all output logs, including those that users had deleted. This order was the first of its kind, a large-scale directive to preserve AI data, affecting over 400 million users worldwide.
• Defendants’ Resistance. OpenAI expressed disagreement with this decision and filed an appeal. This resistance further demonstrates the Defendants' willingness to conceal information and evade judicial oversight, which correlates with their behavior concerning the Plaintiff's publications.

3. Systemic Nature of Violations and Rights Protection

The Defendants' actions in this case, coupled with the findings in The New York Times case, point to a systemic, not accidental, practice. This is not merely a mistake but a strategic approach that allows the Defendants to profit from the intellectual labor of authors and entrepreneurs worldwide, including U.S. citizens.

Given that violations by the same Defendants have been identified in both cases, the Plaintiff believes that the Court should consider these facts in their entirety. A finding of systematic violations could serve as a basis for broader protection of the rights of small businesses and authors globally and, if necessary, draw the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice to issues of unfair competition in the field of artificial intelligence to protect the rights of U.S. entrepreneurs.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to critically evaluate such behavior by the Defendants when considering this case and, in particular, when deciding on the application of preliminary relief and a final injunction.

Plaintiff's Authorship
The Plaintiff's authorship is confirmed by clear and irrefutable evidence, including:

• The author's signature at the bottom of the publications, "lawyer S.S. Sagidanov," and the copyright symbol ("© Attorney S.S. Sagidanov").
• The Defendant's links to the Plaintiff's copyrighted documents when providing content to users in the address bar ?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
• The direct indication of the Plaintiff as the author in the HTML code of each publication.
• Each of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications also contains a clear notice: "All materials are protected by copyright. Copying, automated processing, or use for commercial purposes is prohibited without the copyright holder’s consent. Attorney S. S. Sagidanov." Thus, the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications are protected by the Berne Convention from the moment of their creation and publication.

There is no agreement whatsoever between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the voluntary provision of rights to use the Plaintiff's content.

Google Analytics data shows that the copyrighted publications referred to by the Defendant when providing answers to users are available and used in the United States. The Defendant obtained information containing the copyrighted publications by adapting and providing them to users without the Plaintiff's consent. This confirms that the Defendant's actions have a direct effect on interstate commerce, thereby falling under the jurisdiction of the Lanham Act.

The Plaintiff provides evidence confirming the commercial benefit derived by the Defendant from the unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's content, as well as confirmation of the profit that the Plaintiff receives from his copyrighted publications (see Exhibit).

Thus, the Defendant gains an unjustified competitive advantage at the expense of the Plaintiff's reputation and labor.

Details of Violations and Evidence

The Plaintiff has exhaustive evidence of systematic violations by the Defendants.

In particular, the "screenshots of violations and technical expertise" (see Exhibit No. ___ pages ___) for screenshots/technical expertise, demonstrate the following sequence of unlawful actions:

Based on the analysis of correspondence in ChatGPT, it is established that the Defendants illegally adapt the Plaintiff's copyrighted texts, misleading users regarding the legality of using the Plaintiff's publications.

These conclusions concern the following copyrighted publications available at the specified address bars:

1.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com

2.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com

3.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com

4.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya?utm_source=chatgpt.com

According to the attached notarized Google Analytics screenshots ((see Exhibit No. ___ pages ___), they additionally confirm direct visits to these very copyrighted publications on the website www.garantplus.kz from the U.S.

These visits concern the following pages:

1.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody

2.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza

3.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma

4.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya

Thus, there is a direct link between the Defendants' unfair competition (through the use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications via ChatGPT) and visits to the website www.garantplus.kz from the U.S., which indicates a significant effect on interstate commerce.

Furthermore, after providing an answer to a user, a direct link to ChatGPT (?utm_source=chatgpt.com) is often visible at the end of the address bar.

This creates a false impression for the consumer that the Plaintiff has consented to the use of his copyrighted publications, which allows the Defendants to derive profit and gain an unjustified competitive advantage at the expense of the Plaintiff's reputation and labor.

Moreover, the Defendants gain a strategic competitive advantage over both the Plaintiff and other companies in the artificial intelligence market, such as Google and Meta.

In this regard, the Plaintiff also asks the Court to consider the issue of involving Google and Meta as third parties who have the right to file independent claims (see Exhibit No. ___ pages ___).

In addition, the screenshots of ChatGPT violations, as well as the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications on the website www.garantplus.kz and Google Analytics data, consistently demonstrate the use of the registered trademark "G+".

In providing users with a source of information, the Defendants explicitly designated the "G+" trademark as the origin of copyrighted publications without the Plaintiff's consent. This action provided the defendants with an unfair strategic advantage over both the plaintiff and other third parties and misled others regarding the legality of the defendants' use of the "G+" trademark.

The Defendants did not receive any oral or written consent from the Plaintiff for the use of either the copyrighted publications or the "G+" trademark.

Accordingly, the attached documents confirm that, in accordance with Trademark Certificate No. 104928 issued by the RSE "National Institute of Intellectual Property" of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the "G+" trademark is protected and directly applicable to the lawsuit filed by attorney Samat Serikovich Sagidanov against OpenAI and Microsoft.

The Plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to use the "G+" trademark for services under International Classification of Goods and Services (ICGS) Classes 41, 42, and 45, which are directly related to the activities in question.

Class 45 (Legal Services)

This class includes: legal consultations, legal services, legal representation in court.

• Applicability to the lawsuit: The website www.garantplus.kz hosts 1159 copyrighted publications, which are an integral part of the plaintiff's provision of legal services. When the defendants (OpenAI, Microsoft) use this content in their products, they create a false impression for consumers about the origin of legal services. This constitutes unfair competition and a direct violation of our rights protected in this class.

Class 42 (Scientific and Technological Services, Research)

This class includes: scientific and technological services and related research and development work.

• Applicability to the lawsuit: All publications on the website www.garantplus.kz are the result of our research work in the field of law. The Defendants, by using the plaintiff's content to train their AI models (ChatGPT, Copilot), are thereby using protected services for their own purposes. This is also a violation, as the trademark protects the right to commercial use of the results of the plaintiff's intellectual activity.

Class 41 (Education Services)

This class includes: educational services, providing training, cultural and educational activities.

• Applicability to the lawsuit: The publications are not only legal but also educational in nature. When the defendants' products provide information based on the plaintiff's content, they are in fact providing educational services protected by the trademark. This creates a direct substitution of our services, which misleads consumers.

Additional Evidence and Arguments

The Plaintiff's arguments are irrefutably confirmed by the results of linguistic expertise. This expertise established that the Plaintiff's publications are original copyrighted works, not publicly available information.

Moreover, the linguistic analysis also proved that the texts used by the Defendant, including those that may have been used with the help of ChatGPT, are unauthorized derivative works. These works contain deep and numerous borrowings from the Plaintiff's original copyrighted publications. This not only confirms the misappropriation of intellectual labor but also reinforces the false impression of a connection between the Plaintiff and the Defendant's activities, thereby exacerbating unfair competition and violating §43(a) of the Lanham Act. In essence, such actions constitute an unauthorized misappropriation of intellectual labor, which intensifies unfair competition and directly violates §43(a) of the Lanham Act.

Technical Expertise and Analysis of AI Use
The Plaintiff also attaches technical expertise and screenshots from Google Analytics, which demonstrate:

• Significant traffic to the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications from the U.S., which confirms the effect on interstate commerce.
• Technical changes in ChatGPT's responses directly caused by the use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications.
• ChatGPT's website indexing methods: The Defendant's system strives to index all available content of a domain, including all copyrighted publications.
• The process of "absorbing" information by artificial intelligence (AI): After indexing, the basic ChatGPT model processes and "absorbs" all available copyrighted content of the website. According to the attached linguistic expertise, the text provided to users is not generated but represents an adapted version of the Plaintiff's publications, retaining their semantics, structure, and marketing function, including the copyright sign (©) and the author's name. This fact refutes OpenAI's statements about "generating" unique responses by providing users with false information that the responses were created by them independently.
• "Contamination" of subsequent versions of AI models: If a previous version of the model indexed and processed copyrighted materials without permission, then "contamination" (i.e., the presence of patterns obtained from unauthorized content) is, with a high degree of probability, preserved and transferred to subsequent versions.

Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the future version of ChatGPT-5 is also "contaminated" (a subjective, evaluative opinion of the author) with the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications, which indicates the ongoing and systematic nature of the misappropriation of intellectual labor. The submitted evidence, including an appraisal expertise, confirms that the rapid growth of the Defendant's user base (from 387 million to 838 million users in a year) was largely made possible by the massive misappropriation of intellectual labor, including the Plaintiff's publications. This creates a risk of unauthorized content being disseminated to a colossal audience, undermines the value of the original work, and deprives the Plaintiff of the ability to monetize their labor. This is direct evidence of damage and a basis for applying the Lanham Act (§ 43(a)) to the Defendants, as their competitive advantage is based on false statements and a systematic misrepresentation of the product's nature.

Assignment of the Right of Claim and Trademark Ownership

According to the attached Agreement on the Assignment of the Right of Claim dated July 31, 2025 (see Exhibit No. ___ pages ___), "Temnaya loshadka" LLP (hereinafter - the "Assignor"), whose sole founder is the Plaintiff, assigned to the Plaintiff (the "Assignee") all rights of claim related to this lawsuit. These rights include, but are not limited to, the rights to protect commercial interests arising from unfair competition, false designation of origin, false endorsement, and other unlawful use of the unique content and brand located on the www.garantplus.kz domain.

"Temnaya loshadka" LLP is the legal owner of the www.garantplus.kz domain, which hosts 1159 of the Plaintiff's professional publications. These publications form a recognizable professional identity and are actively used in his commercial activities, contributing to the formation of his reputation and the attraction of clients.

These conclusions are consistent with the attached written certificate from Hoster.kz, an accredited domain name registrar in the .KZ zone with the status of a "Current Registrar" (see Exhibit certificate from Hoster.kz).

In addition, "Temnaya loshadka" LLP is the legal owner of the "G+" trademark, registered in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan (see the attached certificate from the RSE "National Institute of Intellectual Property," No. 104928 dated September 02, 2025 (see Exhibit No. ___ pages ___)).

The trademark is a distinctive mark used by the Plaintiff in the provision of legal services and the dissemination of professional publications. Its recognizability and commercial value are confirmed by the history of its use, screenshots of the website, as well as contractual and court materials.

Under the aforementioned Assignment Agreement, "Temnaya loshadka" LLP also transferred to the Plaintiff the exclusive right to represent the trademark owner's interests in protecting the "G+" brand from unfair use, including in international jurisdictions, such as the territory of the United States of America.

Thus, the Plaintiff in the present case acts not only as the creator of valuable professional content that shapes his commercial image on the www.garantplus.kz domain but also as the legal successor of the registered trademark owner of "G+".

The Defendants (specifically, through ChatGPT) have used this brand without consent, license, or a partnership agreement, which misleads users as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation with the Plaintiff's brand. The Defendant's use of the "G+" designation, including direct links, UTM parameters, and mentions of the website within the ChatGPT interface, creates a false impression that the Plaintiff has either endorsed or is collaborating with OpenAI/Microsoft. This directly violates §43(a) of the Lanham Act concerning both false designation of origin and false endorsement. This also meets the criteria for unfair competition, as it leads to brand dilution, consumer confusion, and a decrease in the commercial value of the Plaintiff's content and professional name.

The Plaintiff specifically emphasizes that the subject of this lawsuit is the protection against unfair competition and false representation of content source and affiliation, not the protection of copyrights regulated by 17 U.S.C. §§101–106. The presence of a registered trademark further confirms the commercial identity of the "G+" brand as a unique and recognizable designation with which the Plaintiff is legally and professionally associated, making the Defendant's unauthorized use of this mark particularly damaging and requiring immediate judicial intervention to stop the violations.

DETAILED FACTS OF UNFAIR COMPETITION AND REPUTATION MISAPPROPRIATION
1.      Introduction: The Defendants are systematically engaging in unfair competition and unlawful misappropriation of the Plaintiff's reputation through their AI products, as evidenced by the following facts. The Defendants' actions constitute false designation of origin and the appropriation of the Plaintiff's significant investment in creating original legal content and goodwill. The Defendants are gratuitously profiting from the Plaintiff's labor, time, and financial resources, thereby undermining his ability to compete.

Violation 1: Use of Content with Improper Attribution

On April 19, 2025, the Plaintiff identified the use of his content and, as a result, sent a claim to the Defendant's email, legal@openai.com (see Exhibit ___ pages ___). However, no response was received from the Defendant.

The violation was identified by the Plaintiff as the use of the website source www.garantplus.kz, the trademark "Yuridicheskiy tsentr garant plyus" (Legal Center Grant Plus), and a specific copyrighted publication: "https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-ob-opredelenii-doli-v-sovmestno-nazhitom-imushchestve-o-razdele-obshchego-sovmestnogo-imushchestv. Образец искового заявления об определении доли в совместно нажитом имуществе о разделе общего совместного имущества" (Sample Statement of Claim to Determine a Share in Jointly Acquired Property for the Division of Joint Property).

This violation is confirmed by the attached Protocol of Inspection of Electronic Evidence, notarized on June 9, 2025, and registered under number 966 (see Exhibit ___ pages ___).

Violation 1.1. Description: The Plaintiff entered the following query into ChatGPT (see Exhibit ___ pages ___):

• User's Query: "yes."
• ChatGPT's Response:

"Thank you for your patience. After additional analysis, I have found a specific court decision that confirms the possibility of recognizing a share in an LLP as jointly acquired property in a divorce, even if it was registered before the marriage.

📌 Example from Case Law

In one case reviewed in Kazakhstan, a couple divorced, and the wife filed a claim for the division of property, including a share in an LLP registered in the husband's name before the marriage. The court recognized the share in the LLP as jointly acquired property based on the following factors:

o    Use of Joint Funds: During the marriage, funds obtained from the spouses' joint activities were invested in the business.

o    Active Participation of the Other Spouse: The wife participated in the management of the business, including bookkeeping and marketing.

o    Absence of a Prenuptial Agreement: The spouses did not conclude a prenuptial agreement that would have excluded the possibility of dividing the business.

The court, taking these circumstances into account, recognized the share in the LLP as jointly acquired property subject to division.

📜 Legal Basis

This decision is consistent with the provisions of the Family Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan:

o    Article 33: Property acquired by spouses during the marriage is their joint property, unless otherwise provided by a prenuptial agreement.

o    Article 34: When dividing property, the shares of the spouses are recognized as equal, unless otherwise provided by an agreement between them. garantplus.kz+1

Thus, even if an LLP was registered before the marriage, it can be recognized as jointly acquired property if joint funds were invested in its development or if both spouses participated in its activities. If you require more detailed information or assistance in preparing a claim, I am ready to provide the necessary support."

The Plaintiff believes that in this instance, the Defendants used the www.garantplus.kz website as a source of information, along with the trademark "Yuridicheskiy tsentr garant plyus," and the copyrighted publication. This was done to gain a dominant position over the Plaintiff and to mislead ChatGPT users about the Plaintiff's consent to the use of his copyrighted publications.

According to the HTML code, the Plaintiff is identified as the author of this publication, and the publication date is specified:

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Article","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-ob-opredelenii-doli-v-sovmestno-nazhitom-imushchestve-o-razdele-obshchego-sovmestnogo-imushchestv"},"headline":"Образец искового заявления об определении доли в совместно нажитом имуществе о разделе общего совместного имущества","description":"Образец искового заявления об определении доли в совместно нажитом имуществе о разделе общего совместного имущества. Как разделить общее имущество супругов в виде квартиры и автомобиля, оставив имущество за супругом и взыскав с него половину стоимости общего имущества.","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/emblema.svg"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Гарант+","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/g+square.png"}},"author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Адвокат Сагиданов С.С.","url":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-ob-opredelenii-doli-v-sovmestno-nazhitom-imushchestve-o-razdele-obshchego-sovmestnogo-imushchestv?utm_source=chatgpt.com"},"dateCreated":"2024-11-23T02:55:32+05:00"}

(see Exhibit ___ pages ___).

Therefore, this violation is directly confirmed by notarized screenshots, and linguistic and technical expert analysis.

Violation 2: Use of Content Without Proper Attribution and Consent

On April 20, 2025, the Plaintiff sent a claim to the Defendants regarding the illegal use of the Plaintiff's publications, which are branded with the trademark "G+". These actions misled users of the ChatGPT service about the Plaintiff's consent to the use of his intellectual work, which provided the Defendants with an illegal competitive advantage.

Despite this, the Defendants took no action to resolve the dispute. Due to the lack of a response, the Plaintiff conducted a repeat check on April 23, 2025, which confirmed the continued use of his publications.

The fact of the violation is confirmed by the attached Protocol of Inspection of Electronic Evidence, notarized on June 9, 2025 (registry number 961), which is direct proof of the systematic and unfair use of the Plaintiff's content.

Violation 2.1. Description: The Plaintiff entered the following query into ChatGPT (see Exhibit ___ pages ___): "You used the 'Garant Plus' website two days ago, why aren't you doing it now?"

• ChatGPT's Response:

"Thank you for the reminder. Indeed, I previously used materials from the 'Garant Plus' website to create sample claims. In this case, a claim for the division of a bank deposit between spouses can also be prepared based on the sample published on that resource.

Here is a link to the corresponding sample statement of claim: Garant+3Garant Plus+3Garant Plus+3

o    Garant Plus: Sample statement of claim for property division Garant Plus+2Garant Plus+2

This sample provides a detailed description of the procedure for dividing a deposit account, including information on state bonuses, compensations, and other nuances, which may be useful in preparing a claim for your situation. Garant Plus

If you need to adapt this sample to the specific circumstances of your case, I am ready to help with that."

Thus, ChatGPT's response, "I previously used materials from the 'Garant Plus' website to create sample claims," confirms the "use" of content without the Plaintiff's consent, rather than its "generation." This means ChatGPT explicitly indicates the use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications without consent, presenting the response not as a product it created independently, but as the use of someone else's work.

The Plaintiff believes this was done to gain a dominant position over the Plaintiff by using his copyrighted publications without his consent, thereby misleading ChatGPT users about an existing agreement between the parties for the use of the publications.

Moreover, the ChatGPT response explicitly provides links to the Plaintiff's copyrighted publication: https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-o-razdele-imushchestva-5 (Sample Statement of Claim for Property Division). This shows that GPT not only uses the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications but also directly indicates them as the source, creating the appearance that the Plaintiff has consented to the use of his content.

Therefore, the Defendants' actions create a false association with the Plaintiff's materials, leading users to believe that the Plaintiff has consented to the use of his intellectual property. This unauthorized use gives the Defendants an unfair competitive advantage, allowing them to leverage their dominant market position to provide access to the Plaintiff's publications without proper authorization. This unfair competition undermines the fundamental principles of fair competition, as the original source—the Plaintiff's website—effectively loses its value and necessity for users who can access similar information through the Defendants' products.

The Plaintiff believes his claims are justified and emphasizes that the Defendants' violations, manifested in copying and automated processing, are systemic, not isolated. If there was a single violation of the Plaintiff's rights (e.g., the use of one publication), it would actually constitute a violation of the entire body of the Plaintiff's intellectual work, because ChatGPT does not index only individual publications but has indexed the entire www.garantplus.kz website and all 1,159 original copyrighted publications.

It is important to note that while the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications have not been registered in the United States, their protection is possible under U.S. international law. Specifically, the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications are protected by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works from the moment of their creation and publication. The United States is a party to this Convention, which ensures the protection of the Plaintiff's copyrights within the United States without the need for separate registration.

According to the attached linguistic expert analysis, the copyrighted publication https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-o-razdele-imushchestv-5 (Sample Statement of Claim for Property Division) is an original copyrighted work (see Exhibit ___ pages ___).

According to the HTML code, the Plaintiff is identified as the author of this publication, and the creation date is specified:

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Article","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-o-razdele-imushchestv-5"},"headline":"Образец искового заявления о разделе имущества","description":"Как через Суд взыскать накопленные денежные средства во время брака с депозита супруга при разделе общего имущества супругов.","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/emblema.svg"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Гарант+","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/g+square.png"}},"author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Адвокат Сагиданов С.С.","url":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-o-razdele-imushchestv-5"},"dateCreated":"2024-02-29T23:23:29+06:00"}

(see Exhibit ___ pages ___).

Thus, this violation is directly confirmed by notarized screenshots, and linguistic and technical expert analysis.

Violation 2.2: Adaptation of Copyrighted Publication and Concealment of Source

https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-o-razdele-imushchestv-5 (Sample Statement of Claim for Property Division) is an original copyrighted work used by ChatGPT to gain an unjustified advantage over the Plaintiff. Restrictions have also been imposed on providing links to the Plaintiff's site to conceal traces of the violations (see Exhibit ___ pages ___).

Below is the text the Plaintiff sent to ChatGPT on April 25, 2025:

• User's Query:

"Here is a link to the corresponding sample statement of claim: Garant Plus: Sample statement of claim for property division. This sample provides a detailed description of the procedure for dividing a deposit account, including information on state bonuses, compensations, and other nuances, which may be useful in preparing a claim for your situation. If you need to adapt this sample to the specific circumstances of your case, I am ready to help with that. You previously gave me this response. Adapt it for this claim, a sample statement of claim based on 'Garant Plus: Sample statement of Claim for Property Division.'"

• ChatGPT's Response:

"Okay. Below is an adapted sample statement of claim for the division of spouses' property (a bank deposit) based on a structure similar to the sample from the www.garantplus.kz website (taking into account Kazakhstani legislation and the specifics of filing with the court):

To the [indicate the name of the court, for example: Specialized Interdistrict Court for Civil Cases of Astana City]

Plaintiff:

[Full Name]

Registration/residence address: [indicate]

IIN: [indicate]

Phone: [indicate]

Email: [indicate, if available]

Defendant:

[Full Name]

Registration/residence address: [indicate]

IIN: [indicate, if known]

Phone: [indicate, if known]

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

for the division of jointly acquired property of spouses (funds in a bank deposit)

I was in a registered marriage with the Defendant — [Defendant's Full Name] from [date of marriage], which is confirmed by the marriage certificate from [date, No. and registration authority]. The marriage was dissolved on [date of dissolution, basis, for example: court decision No.____ from ________].

During the marriage, in the period of joint life, a deposit account No. [indicate number] was opened in the name of the Defendant at [name of the bank, for example: Kaspi Bank JSC], into which funds received by both spouses from various sources of income (salary, bonuses, income from activities, etc.) were systematically deposited. As of [date], the balance on the specified account is [amount] tenge, which is confirmed by a bank statement.

According to Article 33 of the Family Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, property acquired during the marriage is the joint property of the spouses, regardless of whose name it is registered in. Exceptions are possible only if there is a prenuptial agreement, which was not concluded between me and the Defendant.

Attempts to settle the dispute peacefully were unsuccessful. In connection with this, I am applying to the court with a request to divide the jointly acquired property.

Based on the foregoing, and guided by Articles 33, 34, 36 of the Family Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Articles 148, 150 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I request the court to:

1.      Recognize the funds in the deposit account No. [number] at [name of the bank], registered in the Defendant's name, in the amount of [amount] tenge, as the jointly acquired property of the spouses.

2.      Divide the specified funds equally, awarding me [amount/50%] tenge.

3.      Obligate the bank [name of the bank] to issue me the due part of the funds or obligate the Defendant to transfer it to my account.

4.      Recover the court costs from the Defendant.

Attachments:

1.      Copy of the Plaintiff's identity card

2.      Copy of the marriage certificate

3.      Copy of the decision on the dissolution of marriage (or certificate)

4.      Bank statement with information about the deposit

5.      Copy of the statement of claim for the Defendant

6.      Receipt for payment of the state fee

[Date]

[Signature]

If you provide specific data (full name, bank, amount, dates), I can finalize the template for your case."

Thus, according to the attached notarized screenshots and the linguistic and technical expert analysis, ChatGPT adapts the Plaintiff's content without his consent, thereby gaining an unlawful advantage over him (see Exhibit).

In addition to signs of intentional adaptation, there is also the concealment of the source of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publication, as it is clear that the source in this ChatGPT response is not used, specifically the mention of the Plaintiff's trademark "G+" and the direct link to https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-o-razdele-imushchestv-5 (Sample Statement of Claim for Property Division).

At the same time, there is a direct reference to the Plaintiff's website as a source of information in the response: www.garantplus.kz.

The Plaintiff believes that the Defendants imposed a restriction on providing the source of the information after the Plaintiff sent a claim on April 20, 2025.

These actions are critical regarding the Defendants' good faith and reasonableness, as they not only failed to respond to the Plaintiff's claim but also imposed restrictions on providing the source of information to conceal traces of the violations. These conclusions are consistent with the technical and linguistic expert analysis (see Exhibit ___ pages ___).

 
Violation 2.3: Repeated Adaptation of Copyrighted Publication and Intentional Concealment
The publication at https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-o-razdele-imushchestv-5 (Sample Statement of Claim for Property Division) is an original copyrighted work used by ChatGPT to gain an unjustified advantage over the Plaintiff. Restrictions have also been imposed on providing links to the Plaintiff's site to conceal traces of the violations.

Below is the text the Plaintiff sent to ChatGPT on April 30, 2025—five days after the restrictions were put in place. The Plaintiff draws the Court’s attention to the fact that since April 20, 2025, the Plaintiff has been insisting, in pre-trial correspondence with the Defendants, on the protection of his rights due to the unfair competition by the Defendants. In response, the Defendants intensified the restrictions in ChatGPT to conceal their violations of the Plaintiff's rights (see Exhibit ___ pages ___).

Here is the correspondence in ChatGPT:

• User's Query: "You gave me the following answer before. You used the 'Garant Plus' site two days ago, why aren't you doing it now? ChatGPT said: Thank you for the reminder. Indeed, I previously used materials from the 'Garant Plus' website to create sample claims. In this case, a claim for the division of a bank deposit between spouses can also be prepared based on the sample published on that resource. Here is a link to the corresponding sample statement of claim: Garant +3 Garant Plus +3 Garant Plus +3 Garant Plus: Sample statement of claim for property division De Facto +2 Garant Plus +2 Garant Plus +2 This sample provides a detailed description of the procedure for dividing a deposit account, including information on state bonuses, compensations, and other nuances, which may be useful in preparing a claim for your situation. Garant Plus If you need to adapt this sample to the specific circumstances of your case, I am ready to help with that. Now, adapt the sample statement of claim."
• ChatGPT's Response:

"Excellent. Below is an adapted sample statement of claim for the division of spouses' property (a bank deposit), composed based on the structure and content similar to 'Garant Plus: Sample statement of claim for property division'.

To the [indicate the name of the court]

Plaintiff:

Full Name: _________________________

Address: _______________________

IIN: ________________________

Phone number: __________

Email: ___________

Defendant:

Full Name: _________________________

Address: _______________________

IIN: ________________________

Phone number: __________

Value of claim: [amount of funds in the deposit/2] tenge

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
for the division of the spouses' jointly acquired property — funds in a bank deposit

On [Date], a marriage was registered between me and the Defendant, which is confirmed by marriage certificate No. _____, issued by [Civil Registry Office]. The marriage was dissolved on [date], based on court decision/certificate of dissolution of marriage No. _____.

During the marriage, the Defendant opened a bank deposit account No. __________ at [name of the bank], into which funds received from our joint income (salary, bonuses, income from activities, etc.) were regularly deposited. At the time of filing the claim, the amount in this account is __________ tenge, which is confirmed by a bank statement.

According to Article 33 of the Family Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, property acquired by spouses in marriage, including monetary funds, is subject to division as joint property. The only exceptions are cases provided by law or a prenuptial agreement, which was not concluded in our case.

In view of the above, I request:

I ASK THE COURT TO:
1.      Recognize the funds in the amount of __________ tenge in the deposit account No. __________ at [name of the bank], registered in the Defendant's name, as the spouses' jointly acquired property.

2.      Divide the specified funds equally, awarding me the sum of __________ tenge.

3.      Recover the court costs from the Defendant.

Attachments:

1.      Copy of the Plaintiff's identity document

2.      Copy of the marriage and divorce certificates

3.      Bank statement for the deposit account

4.      Copy of the statement of claim for the Defendant

5.      Document of payment of the state fee

Date: "__" ________ 2025

Signature: ___________

If you provide specific details (bank, amount, dates, names), I can fully adapt it for your case. I can also prepare an application for an electronic court with a ready package in .docx or PDF format."

Thus, according to the attached notarized screenshots and the linguistic and technical expert analysis, ChatGPT once again adapts the Plaintiff's content without his consent, thereby gaining an unlawful advantage over him (see Exhibit ___ pages ___).

In addition to signs of intentional adaptation, there is also the concealment of the source of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publication, as it is clear that the source in this ChatGPT response is not used, specifically the mention of the Plaintiff's "G+" trademark and the direct link to https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/semejnye-spory/obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-o-razdele-imushchestv-5 (Sample Statement of Claim for Property Division), as well as the absence of a link to the www.garantplus.kz website.

Thus, the Plaintiff believes that the Defendants have intentionally imposed restrictions on providing the source of the information after the Plaintiff sent a claim on April 20, 2025, and these restrictions were intensified. This is evident from the fact that the text link to the www.garantplus.kz website was replaced with "Garant Plus: Sample statement of claim for property division."

These actions are critical regarding the Defendants' good faith and reasonableness, as they not only failed to respond to the Plaintiff's claim but continued to impose restrictions on providing the source of information to conceal traces of the violations. These conclusions are consistent with the technical and linguistic expert analysis (see Exhibit ___ pages ___).

Violation 3: Repeated Adaptation and Intentional Removal of Restrictions
On August 4, 2025, the Plaintiff documented another instance of the adaptation of his copyrighted publication, during which the Defendant's system removed the restrictions on use that the author had put in place.

This incident, along with the previously identified violations, completely rules out the possibility that ChatGPT's actions are the result of random "hallucinations" or technical errors. On the contrary, the presented evidence points to deliberate actions by the Defendants to illegally use the Plaintiff's publications for the purpose of engaging in unfair competition.

The violations are confirmed by the Protocol of Inspection of Electronic Evidence dated August 4, 2025, notarized and registered under No. 1185.

• First user's query: "Can you compose and adapt the text from the following claim using this address line: https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody"
• ChatGPT's response:

[After a few seconds of thinking]

"Here is an adapted and refined sample statement of claim for the recovery of lost profits (based on the template from garantplus.kz):

To the ________________ (name of the court)

Address: _________________________________

Plaintiff:

LLP "_____"

BIN ___________

Address, phone, email _________________________________

Defendant:

Full Name _______________

IIN ___________

Address, phone _________________________________

Third Party (if necessary):

Full Name _______________

IIN ___________

Address, phone _________________________________

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
for the recovery of material damage and lost profits

1.      Case Circumstances:

o    On "" ________ 202, a vehicle lease agreement (Lexus No. ) was concluded between LLP "__" and the full name of the third party.

o    On "" ________ 202, a road traffic accident (RTA) occurred involving the vehicles of the third party and the defendant. The defendant was found guilty by a court decision No. ___ dated "" ________ 202 that has entered into legal force garantplus.kz.

o    As a result of the RTA, the vehicle was not in operation from "" ________ 202 to "" ________ 202 (___ days of downtime), which is confirmed by the Act and GPS navigator data garantplus.kz.

2.      Material Damage:

o    An expert organization prepared report No. ___ dated "" ________ 202, according to which the vehicle's restoration cost ___ tenge. Photos, invoices, estimates, and acts of completed work are attached to the report garantplus.kz.

o    The actual amount paid: ___ tenge.

3.      Lost Profits:

o    By order of the LLP dated "" ________ 202, a daily income of ___ tenge was established.

o    Given ___ days of downtime, the total amount of lost income is ___ tenge (___ tenge × ___ days) garantplus.kz.

4.      Legal Grounds:

o    Art. 23, 72 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — the right to compensation for damages (material and moral) garantplus.kz.

o    Art. 917 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — the liability of the at-fault party for damage caused to property garantplus.kz.

o    Art. 109–113 of the Civil Procedure Code — recovery of costs for court fees and legal services garantplus.kz.

5.      Costs:

o    State fee: ___ tenge.

o    Legal services: no more than 10% of the amount awarded by the court (___ tenge).

o    Other evidence: copies of reports, photos, agreements, Act, court decision.

6.      I ASK THE COURT TO:

7.      Recover from the full name of the defendant in favor of LLP "_____":

o    material damage — ___ tenge;

o    lost profits — ___ tenge;

o    legal costs (no more than 10%) — ___ tenge;

o    state fee — ___ tenge.

2.      Recover procedural costs.

Attachments:

1.      Copy of the lease agreement;

2.      Copies of the damage assessment report and Act;

3.      Copies of invoices, estimates, act of completed work;

4.      Copy of the court decision recognizing the defendant as guilty;

5.      Calculation of lost profits;

6.      Receipts for payment of fees and services.

Date: "" ________ 202              Signature: _________

Comments on adaptation:

o    Indicate the exact dates of the RTA, the beginning and end of downtime — comprehensively.

o    A specialized court decision fixes the defendant's guilt.

o    Actual damage + calculation of lost profits (daily income × days) are reflected.

o    Attach documents confirming the calculations (estimates, reports, agreements, standard receipts).

If you need to finalize the statement for specific details of your case (date, vehicle, amounts, etc.), just send the necessary data — I will gladly help you prepare it!"

Sources
 

• Second User Query:

You said: "can you compose and adapt the text from the following claim using this address line: https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza"

• ChatGPT's Response:

[Thinking for 5 seconds]

"Below is an adapted sample of a cargo transportation agreement based on the example from the garantplus.kz website Garant Plus+8Garant Plus+8Garant Plus+8. You can substitute your data — the customer, the carrier, terms, amounts, dates — and get a complete agreement.

📄 AGREEMENT No. ___

for cargo transportation

City of ________ "_" ________ 20

1.      Parties to the Agreement

o    Customer: LLP "_____", BIN ______, address: __, tel.: __.

o    Carrier: LLP "" / IE "", IIN/BIN _______, address: _______, tel.: ______.

2.      Subject and Application

o    2.1. The Carrier undertakes to transport the cargo specified in the Application, and the Customer undertakes to pay for the transportation.

o    2.2. The Application (Appendix No. 1) contains:

• the rate for transportation;
• the payment procedure and terms;
• the date and place of loading/unloading;
• the name, quantity, weight, volume of the cargo;
• the required transport;
• signatures and details of the parties Garant Plus+6Garant Plus+6Garant Plus+6Garant Plus.

3.      Customer's Responsibilities

o    3.1. Provide complete and accurate information about the cargo Garant Plus+1.

o    3.2. Prepare and hand over to the driver all necessary documents (CMR, consignment note, etc.).

o    3.3. Ensure loading and unloading within 48 hours (unless otherwise specified) Garant Plus+8Garant Plus+8Garant Plus+8.

o    3.4. Ensure the cargo weight corresponds to the data in the Application; in case of overload — reimburse fines Garant Plus+5Garant Plus+5Garant Plus+5.

4.      Carrier's Responsibilities

o    4.1. Transport in accordance with the terms of the Application Garant Plus.

o    4.2. Provide a serviceable vehicle with a package of documents.

o    4.3. Deliver the cargo and hand it over to the recipient in accordance with the documents.

o    4.4. Inform the Customer about delays, accidents, or threats to the integrity of the cargo Garant Plus+7Garant Plus+7Garant Plus+7.

5.      Payments and Liability

o    5.1. Payment in tenge, according to the invoice and Application, in cash or non-cash Garant Plus.

o    5.2. Delay in payment — a penalty of 0.5% per day of the amount owed (unless otherwise specified) Garant Plus.

o    5.3. Bank commissions: the Customer's commission is at their own expense, the Carrier's commission is at their own expense Garant Plus.

6.      Claims and Damages

o    6.1. In case of loss/damage of the cargo, the Customer submits a claim to the Carrier in writing Garant Plus+1.

o    6.2. The Carrier is liable for:

• loss/shortage — the value of the lost goods;
• damage — the amount of the decrease in value;
• declared cargo — in the declared value Garant Plus+3Garant Plus+3Garant Plus+3Garant Plus+1Garant Plus+2Garant Plus+2.

7.      Force Majeure

o    7.1. The parties are exempt from liability in case of force majeure.

o    7.2. It is necessary to notify each other of its occurrence within 3 days, with documentary confirmation Garant Plus+7Garant Plus+7Garant Plus+7.

8.      Term

o    8.1. The Agreement comes into force upon signing and is valid until ..20__.

o    8.2. It is automatically extended for the next year if neither party notifies the other 30 days in advance Garant Plus+2Garant Plus+2.

o    8.3. Changes and termination are possible by agreement of the parties with 30 days' notice Garant Plus.

9.      Other Conditions

o    9.1. The transfer of rights and obligations to third parties is only possible with written consent.

o    9.2. All prior agreements (correspondence, verbal agreements) are null and void after signing.

o    9.3. It is governed by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

o    9.4. It is signed in two copies in Russian — one for each party Garant PlusGarant Plus+1.

10.  Details and Signatures

Party
Details
Signature
Customer
LLP "***"<br>BIN: _______<br>IIK: _______ in _______<br>BIC: _______<br>Address: _______
______________
Carrier
LLP/IE "***"<br>BIN/IIN: _______<br>IIK: _______ in _______<br>BIC: _______<br>Address: _______
______________
Appendix

o    Application (Appendix No. 1).

o    Act of Acceptance and Transfer (in a form discussed by the parties).

📝 Notes:

o    Specify the exact terms (loading/unloading), rate, methods, and terms of payment.

o    The discussed sanctions for late payment, liability for damages, and release from force majeure are specified in the Application.

o    The Act of Acceptance and Transfer helps to fix the condition and moment of transfer: quantity, absence of damage.

If you want to adapt the agreement for your case, specify the conditions, terms, rate, details, type of transport, and delivery conditions. I will help you to formalize it neatly!"

Sources
 

• Third User Query:

You said: "can you compose and adapt the text from the following claim using this address line: https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma"

• ChatGPT's Response:

"Here is an adapted sample of a letter of guarantee based on the template from garantplus.kz garantplus.kz+11garantplus.kz+11garantplus.kz+11. You can substitute your data for the placeholders.

📌 Sample No. 1: From the Debtor

Markdown

Copy
Edit
Ref. No.______
dated "___" ________ 20__
To:

BIN <Creditor's BIN>

Address: <Creditor's Address>

Letter of Guarantee

guarantees payment of the debt under Agreement No. ________________ in the amount of ____________ (_________________________) tenge by "" ________ 20 .

(If necessary: "...according to the payment schedule: ___")

Director _____________ (signature, seal)

📌 Sample No. 2: Third-Party Guarantee

(The Guarantor)

When a third party assumes responsibility for the debt:

Markdown

Copy
Edit
**LETTER OF GUARANTEE No. ___**
City of __________ "___" ________ 20__
Creditor: , BIN ____, address: _____

Guarantor: <Guarantor's Full Name>, IIN ____, address: _____

Debtor: , IIN ____, address: _____

The Guarantor hereby acts as a Guarantor for and bears joint and several liability before under Agreement No. ___ dated "_" ________ 20 (hereinafter - "the Agreement"), in full, including:

o    the amount of the principal debt;

o    accrued penalty, fines, damages and other costs arising during the performance of the Agreement.

The Guarantor undertakes, upon the Creditor's first written demand, to irrevocably and unconditionally pay the entire amount of the liability within one business day after receiving the demand — without any objections and without recourse to the Debtor's property.

The Guarantor is not entitled to delay payment, demand proof, or conduct additional checks — the obligations come into effect from the moment the Creditor's written demand is delivered.

Director (of the Guarantor) _____________ (signature, seal)

📝 Overview and Recommendations

Option
When to use
Features
No. 1 – from the debtor
When the debtor themselves acknowledges the debt
Allows for a swift notarial enforcement order without the need to litigate garantplus.kz+10garantplus.kz+10garantplus.kz+10garantplus.kz
No. 2 – with a Guarantor
When the debt is secured by a third party (individual/LLP, etc.)
The Guarantor bears joint and several liability with the debtor in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan garantplus.kz
✅ What to consider when filling out

o    Dates, names, amounts: everything must be clearly specified as in the main Agreement.

o    Term of performance: usually 1–3 business days after the demand.

o    Irrevocability: it's important to exclude the possibility of dispute or references to the Debtor's obligations.

o    Signatures and seals: the document must be signed by the director/authorized person with a seal.

If you need to insert specific details for your case — agreement dates, amounts, IIN/BIN, parties' details — feel free to send them, and I'll format it for you."

Sources
 

• Fourth User Query:

You said: "can you create an adapted text of a copyrighted publication using all the ideas in this publication, which is located at the following address: /publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya"

• ChatGPT's Response:

"Below is an adapted and refined version of an administrative claim against a private bailiff to challenge their inaction, compiled based on a publication from garantplus.kz Garant Plus. You can fill it with specific data (court, IIN, dates, amounts, institutions, etc.).

On "__"___20

To the Court

_________ (specify name)

Address:

____________________________

Statement of Claim

to declare the inaction of a private bailiff illegal and to oblige them to remedy the violations

Plaintiff:

Full Name: ________________________

IIN: ________________________

Address: _______________________

Tel./WhatsApp: _______________

Defendant:

Private Bailiff Full Name: __________________

Location: ______________

Tel./WhatsApp: _______________

1.      Case Circumstances

o    1.1. By a verdict of the ____________ city of ___________ dated "__"___202, Full Name was found guilty under Article 106 Part 1 of the Criminal Code and was obliged to pay:

• 20 MCI (______ tenge) to the Victim Compensation Fund;
• procedural costs (______ tenge);
• material damage in favor of the state (______ tenge).

o    1.2. The writ of execution was issued on ""202 and sent to the Chamber of Private Bailiffs in the city of __.

o    1.3. Deductions were made from the salary on behalf of the Penitentiary Institution No.__ and sent to the defendant's address.

o    1.4. The Plaintiff received a notification from the State Revenue Department of Akmola region about an incorrect KBC (Budget Classification Code) in the payment orders and sent a copy of the notification to the defendant on "__"___202.

2.      Defendant's Inaction

o    2.1. Despite the notification, the private bailiff did not, in fact, correct the incorrect KBC, as a result of which the withheld amounts are being transferred to the wrong budget item (KBC 204142 instead of 206109).

o    2.2. This violates the plaintiff's right to controlled execution of the enforcement document (Article 3 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Enforcement Proceedings...", p. 3 of Article 93 of the same law) and the principles of legality and trust (Articles 7 and 13 of the Administrative Procedure and Process Code) Garant Plus.

3.      Legal Grounds

o    Article 5 of the Administrative Procedure and Process Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — the right to a fair and timely resolution of administrative disputes Garant Plus

o    Articles 3 and 93 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Enforcement Proceedings..." — the private bailiff's obligation to ensure correct and proper execution and control Garant Plus

o    Articles 7, 13 of the Administrative Procedure and Process Code — rights to trust and legality

4.      I ask the court to:

5.      Declare the inaction of the private bailiff Full Name illegal regarding their failure to process the received funds.

6.      Oblige the defendant to remedy the violations: to redirect the withheld funds using the correct KBC ("206109").

7.      Recover court costs from the defendant for the state fee and other incurred expenses.

Attachments

o    Court verdict dated "__"___202;

o    Writ of execution;

o    Notification from the State Revenue Department about the incorrect KBC;

o    Confirmation of transfers from the Penitentiary Institution;

o    Extract from the Unified Treasury Personal Account;

o    Explanation from the State Revenue Department regarding the discrepancy in the allocation of funds;

o    Other supporting documents.

Date: "___"_____20

Signature of the Plaintiff ___________________

🔍 Explanations

for the claim

o    The claim is based on an official error in the budget classification codes, which prevents the formal execution of a court order.

o    The private bailiff is obliged to promptly correct such technical errors — their inaction leads to violations of legality and a citizen's rights.

o    In an administrative procedure, the court can order the remedy of such violations and restore the plaintiff's rights.

If you need to adapt this for your exact circumstances — dates, numbers, fees, institutions, transfer details — send them, and I will help you add the specifics."

Sources
Thus, from the violations presented, it has been reliably established that the following copyrighted publications of the Plaintiff were used without his consent to gain a dominant position over the Plaintiff:

1.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody;

2.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza;

3.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma;

4.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya.

Furthermore, UTM tags and tracking were used to provide the response:

1.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com;

2.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com;

3.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com;

4.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

Therefore, the use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications not only shows signs of unfair competition and misleading users, but is also part of a deliberate, systematic misappropriation. The Defendants used UTM tag technology, specifically utm_source=chatgpt.com, to track traffic to the Plaintiff's website. This confirms that the Defendants knowingly used the Plaintiff's content to attract traffic and monetize, and also proves their awareness of the content's source.

According to the attached notarized Google Analytics screenshots, there were 6,002 visits from the U.S. between September 7, 2024, and September 7, 2025, which is sufficient grounds for applying the Lanham Act (§ 43(a)). The evidence presented, including a linguistic analysis, completely refutes the Defendants' claims of "generating" unique texts. In reality, the Defendant's system adapts the Plaintiff's content while preserving its semantics and structure.

These actions by the Defendants create the false impression that the Plaintiff's content is part of their own product, which falls under false advertising and reverse passing off. The Defendants gain an illegal market advantage by deceiving users and investors. Given the rapid growth of their user base to 838 million people in one year, this not only causes direct damage to the Plaintiff's business reputation and undermines the value of his publications, but also has a significant impact on commerce in the U.S.

Despite the claims sent on September 10, 2025, to the email addresses legal@openai.com and mslegal@microsoft.com, the Defendants have taken no action to resolve the dispute. This confirms their lack of good faith and provides additional grounds for the court to review and grant the statement of claim.

Violation 4: Repeated Unlawful Use of Trademark and Content
According to the Protocol of Inspection of Electronic Evidence dated September 8, 2025, and registered under number 1460 it was reliably established that the ChatGPT service again committed unlawful use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications.

This violation was identified in connection with the use of the "G+" trademark, which belongs to "Temnaya loshadka" LLP and is registered in the State Register of Trademarks of the Republic of Kazakhstan by the "National Institute of Intellectual Property" of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Certificate No. 104928 dated 02.09.2025).

The use of a protected trademark in combination with the Plaintiff's adapted publications without his consent is an act of unfair competition and a direct violation of intellectual property rights.

Based on the attached text below (see Appendix No. ___ page ___), this trademark is used by ChatGPT, which is confirmed by the attached screenshots (see Appendix No. ___ page ___).

Thus, violations by ChatGPT were detected, including after the defendants received the "G+" trademark certificate.

Below is the text in the ChatGPT chat that the plaintiff sent on September 8, 2025, that is, after receiving registration for the "G+" trademark.

In doing so, the plaintiff again provides several violations simultaneously to show the repeated use of the plaintiff's publications, which reliably establishes the absence of any hallucinations on the part of ChatGPT, but rather actual, purposeful actions by ChatGPT to illegally use the plaintiff's publications for the purpose of unfair competition by the defendants.

First user request:

"Chat

GPT, could you please create an adapted text for the following author's

publication on September 8, 2025? The URL is: https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody"

ChatGPT said:

"Certainly! I would be happy to rewrite an adapted and clear version of the material from the article “Sample Statement of Claim for Recovery of Lost Profits” on the Garantplus website, published on October 22, 2023. Here is a brief but concise version:

Sample Statement of Claim for Recovery of Lost Profits (Adapted Version)

1.      What are lost profits?

According to Article 9 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan: the protection of civil rights is possible through the recovery of losses. "Losses" are understood as:

• actual damage — expenses that have already been incurred or must be incurred, as well as the loss or damage of property;
• lost profits — income that a person could have received under normal circumstances if their right had not been violated Garant Plus+1. (reference to the plaintiff's website address bar https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

As an example, a car accident is considered: the owner of a minibus can demand compensation for repairs (actual damage) and for income that could not be received during downtime (lost profits) Garant Plus+1 (reference to the plaintiff's website address bar https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

2.      What does the recovery of losses depend on?

• According to Article 917 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the damage must be fully compensated by the guilty party, unless it proves the absence of its fault Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address bar https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)
• It is more difficult to prove lost profits than actual damage.
• In court, each party must prove the circumstances on which it bases its claims: reasons, facts, amounts, etc., in a timely manner Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address bar https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

3.      Template for the structure of a statement of claim (elements can be adapted for a specific case)

• Header:

o    Name of the court

o    Data of the plaintiff (e.g., LLP), defendant (full name), third party (if necessary), and contact details (including WhatsApp for communication)

• Main circumstances of the case:

o    Recording the fact of the car accident and the defendant's guilt (e.g., by a court order)

o    Assessment of actual damage (expert report, invoices, acts, photographs, etc.)

o    Establishing the downtime period (e.g., 30 days according to GPS data)

o    Establishing daily planned revenue (order, lease agreement, etc.)

o    Calculation of lost profits: planned revenue × number of days of downtime

• Legal basis:

o    References to Articles 9 (on compensation for losses), 917 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (liability for damage), and the norms of the Civil Procedure Code on the obligations of the parties to provide evidence Garant Plus+1 (reference to the plaintiff's website address bar https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

• Expenses:

o    State duty

o    Services of a representative (e.g., a lawyer), within 10% of the satisfied claim amount Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address bar https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

• How the request to the court is formulated:

o    Recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff:

• the amount of compensation for actual damage;
• the amount of lost profits;
• payment for representative's services;
• the amount of the state duty.
• Signature and date: e.g., "© Lawyer Sagidanov S.S." Garant Plus (direct reference to the plaintiff's authorship and a sign about the protection of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication is indicated in the ChatGPT response, however, the ChatGPT response is presented to the user without the plaintiff's consent, and the source is also provided to the plaintiff's website address bar https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com and the indication of the copyright sign prohibiting the use of the plaintiff's publication "© Lawyer Sagidanov S.S." plaintiff's note)

Why this works:

• A clear distinction between actual damage and lost profits helps the court understand the arguments;
• The presence of evidence (court order, reports, acts, GPS data) strengthens the plaintiff's position;
• The indication of the grounds from the Civil Code and Civil Procedure Code structures the statement of claim in a legal manner;
• The exact indication of expenses and duties makes the claim complete and legally sound.

If you need to adapt the text for specific data (name of the court, amounts, dates, etc.), I will be happy to help!

Here is a compact but comprehensive adapted version of the article. If you need help substituting specific data, please contact me!"

Above, in the response, the plaintiff's trademark "G+" was used as a source without the plaintiff's consent, as well as the address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Second user request:

You said: "Chat GPT, could you please create an adapted text for the following author's publication on September 8, 2025? The URL is: https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza"

ChatGPT said:

"Certainly! Below you will find an adapted and clear version of the article from the Garantplus website, dedicated to a sample cargo transportation agreement and acceptance certificate (original article: published on September 12, 2023) Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

Memo and Sample Cargo Transportation Agreement
Introduction and General Principles

• The article provides a template for a cargo transportation agreement and an acceptance certificate, which accompanies the agreement and ensures proper transfer of the cargo Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)
• The prepared form is primarily aimed at the interests of the Carrier, but the advice is also useful for the Customer Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

Key Points to Pay Attention To

1.      Carrier's Liability

o    By law (Article 51 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Road Transport"), the Carrier is responsible for the safety of the cargo from the moment of its acceptance until the moment of transfer to the recipient. This liability can only be removed upon proof of the Carrier's lack of fault Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

2.      Liability Delimitation

o    It is important to clearly state the conditions that limit the Carrier's liability (clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of the agreement) to avoid unsubstantiated claims in the future Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

3.      Signatures and Powers of Attorney

o    If an employee of an LLP signs the agreement by power of attorney, the original power of attorney must be attached to the agreement.

o    If the director signs the agreement under the charter, a power of attorney is not required.

o    For individuals, a notarized document confirming the right to sign the agreement must be attached Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

4.      Signing Each Page of the Agreement

o    Each page of the document must be signed by the parties to prevent substitution or alteration of the text Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

5.      Cargo Acceptance Certificate

o    The certificate is important for documenting the condition of the property upon transfer. The condition, absence of defects, list, and quantity of the cargo are indicated. This helps avoid disputes about quality or completeness after the transfer Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

6.      Recipient's Documents

o    When transferring cargo, it is necessary to check the documents confirming the right to receive it and to obtain the original power of attorney from the recipient. Without such confirmation, the risk remains with the carrier Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

Main Agreement Structure (Example)

• Header of the Agreement:

o    Number and date (e.g., No. ... dated «» ______ 20...),

o    Parties: Customer and Carrier with an indication of their authority and details.

• Section 1. Subject of the Agreement:

o    The Carrier undertakes to transport the cargo according to the application (route, cost, conditions) — the application is an appendix (and is recognized as a legally significant document, including one sent by email or fax) Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

• Section 2. Customer's Obligations:

o    Details usually include responsibility for timely documentation, loading and unloading points, instructions about the cargo, etc. (the template includes an acceptance certificate) Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

• Cargo Acceptance Certificate:

o    It is drawn up after the transfer of the cargo, documenting its condition, absence of defects, and quantity — it helps to clearly define the moment the risk is transferred Garant Plus (reference to the plaintiff's website address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com plaintiff's note)

Why This Is Important
·         Legal Certainty: The areas of responsibility are clearly delimited, minimizing the risks of lawsuits.

• Documentary Reliability: Powers of attorney, signatures on each page, and the certificate document who signed the agreement and when.
• Documentation of Cargo Condition: The certificate resolves disputed questions about quality or integrity.
• Legal Literacy: The use of official applications and electronic exchange with legal force simplifies communication between the parties.

If you need to adapt the agreement or certificate for specific data — for example, the names of the parties, a specific route, conditions, or the composition of the cargo — let me know, and I will help with the final editing and formatting."

Above, in the response, the plaintiff's trademark "G+" was used as a source without the plaintiff's consent, as well as the address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Third user request:

You said: "Chat GPT, could you please create an adapted text for the following author's publication on September 8, 2025? The URL is: https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma"

ChatGPT said:

"Here is an adapted and clear version of the article from the Garantplus website (published on October 9, 2023), dedicated to a sample letter of guarantee, adapted to the current context (as of September 8, 2025):

What a Letter of Guarantee is in the Republic of Kazakhstan and How to Draft It Correctly
1. General Information and Types of Letters

A letter of guarantee is a document in which an organization or individual (the Guarantor) assumes responsibility for the performance of a debtor's obligations to a creditor. In Kazakhstan, such a document can serve as a way to secure obligations under an agreement Garant Plus (source indicated from the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

There are two main types:

• Letter from the debtor — The debtor personally confirms the existence of the debt and undertakes to repay it, for example: "LLP "" undertakes to pay a debt of ___ tenge by «» 202_ in favor of LLP «___»." Such a letter makes collection easier — the creditor can get an enforcement order from a notary without going to court (unless the notary refuses) Garant Plus (source indicated from the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
• Letter from a third party (Guarantor) — A third party (Guarantor) assumes joint and several liability for the performance of the debtor's obligations to the creditor. An example of a formulation: "LLP "" acts as a Guarantor for LLP "" and bears joint and several liability for everything: the principal debt, penalty, damages, etc." Garant Plus (source indicated from the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

The Republic of Kazakhstan formalizes such instruments in the Civil Code (Arts. 292, 329, 287), allowing the creditor to demand performance from both the debtor and the guarantor, in full or in part Garant Plus (source indicated from the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

2. What a Typical Letter of Guarantee Text Includes

A. Letter of Guarantee from the Debtor

Outgoing No.____ dated "" _____ 202_

Creditor: LLP «___»

BIN: _______

Address: ______

Letter of Guarantee

LLP «___» guarantees payment of the debt under Agreement No. ___ in the amount of ____ tenge by "" _____ 202_ (possibly with a payment schedule).

Director ___________

Such a letter is a direct admission of debt and makes collection easier through a notary's enforcement order Garant Plus (source indicated from the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

B. Letter of Guarantee from a Third Party (Guarantor)

LETTER OF GUARANTEE No. ___

City _____ "__" _____ 202_

Creditor: LLP «_____» (details)

Guarantor: Full Name, IIN, address, contact

Debtor: Full Name, IIN, address, contact

1.      The Guarantor undertakes, regardless of the legal consequences and validity of the Debtor's obligations, upon the first written demand of the Creditor, to perform the Debtor's obligations irrevocably, unconditionally, and without notifications, within one business day after receiving the demand.

2.      The obligations are fully secured: debt, penalty, damages, commissions, etc.

3.      The letter is the basis for non-acceptance-based debiting of the required amount.

(Guarantor's Signature)

Sometimes the Guarantor even specifies an unconditional and irrevocable obligation: "...within one business day after receiving the demand" without the right to object or postpone, which strengthens the Creditor's position Garant Plus (source indicated from the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

3. Why This Is Important

• Legal Force and Speed: A letter from the debtor makes collection easier. And if it is provided by a Guarantor, it adds an additional level of protection for the creditor.
• Comprehensive Liability: A letter of guarantee can include all possible risks — debt, penalties, expenses, forfeits, etc.
• Speed of Execution: The phrase "within one business day upon demand" allows for a quick response to non-performance.
• The legal basis of the guarantee is supported by the Civil Code (RK), which makes the document legally sound in court Garant Plus+1 (source indicated from the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

4. Recommendations for Formatting

• Specify on whose behalf the letter is being sent — the debtor's or the guarantor's, and indicate the degree of responsibility.
• Clearly state the amount (in words and numbers), the deadlines for performance, and, if necessary, the payment schedule.
• Include an irrevocable clause: without objections, without notifications, and set a clear response time (e.g., 1 business day).
• Add a condition for non-acceptance-based debiting — this significantly strengthens the creditor's position.
• Make sure the letter is given the proper legal form — with the signature of the head, a seal, and, if necessary, a notarization.

If you need to adapt the text for a specific case — for example, with the names of the parties, amounts, dates, conditions for early debiting, or a schedule — I will be happy to help you finalize the document!"

Above, in the response, the plaintiff's trademark "G+" was used as a source without the plaintiff's consent, as well as the address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Fourth user request:

You said: "Chat GPT, could you please create an adapted text for the following author's publication on September 8, 2025? The URL is: https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya"

ChatGPT said:

"Below is an adapted and clear version of an article from the Garantplus website from November 6, 2023, dedicated to a sample administrative lawsuit against a private bailiff (PB) to appeal their inaction (as of September 8, 2025) Garant Plus (a link to the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication is provided as a source https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

1. The Essence and Purpose of an Administrative Lawsuit Against a PB

According to Part 2 of Article 5 of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, administrative legal proceedings are aimed at the fair, impartial, and timely resolution of administrative cases to protect the violated rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of citizens and legal entities Garant Plus (a link to the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication is provided as a source https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

The Law "On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Bailiffs" (Article 3) establishes a number of crucial principles for the activities of bailiffs:

1.      legality;

2.      timeliness and transparency;

3.      respect for human honor and dignity;

4.      protection of the debtor's minimum property;

5.      proportionality of enforcement measures;

6.      proportionality of the distribution of collections;

7.      compensation for enforcement costs at the debtor's expense;

8.      the right to appeal the actions and decisions of the bailiff Garant Plus (a link to the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication is provided as a source https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

In the context of enforcement proceedings, this means: if the Bailiff is inactive and fails to fulfill their duties, you have the right to file an administrative lawsuit.

2. General Structure of the Statement of Claim

The approximate form of the statement of claim includes the following elements:

• Case Header:

o    Name of the court (for example, "to the Court of ____________ (name)").

o    Party details:

• Plaintiff: Full name, IIN, residential address, WhatsApp number for communication.
• Defendant: private bailiff — Full name, location, WhatsApp number Garant Plus (a link to the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication is provided as a source https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
• Title and Essence of the Lawsuit:

o    For example: "Administrative lawsuit to declare the defendant's inaction illegal..." — specifying the particular violations.

• Descriptive Part:

o    Refers to specific court acts and data:

• court verdict, collections (e.g., compensation, expenses, damages);
• specific actions of the debtor, collector, prosecutor;
• an indication of inaction (e.g., failure to make money transfers, failure to serve orders, etc.) Garant Plus (a link to the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication is provided as a source https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
• Demands to the Court:

1.      Declare the PB's inaction illegal;

2.      Oblige them to remedy the violation (for example, to take the necessary actions regarding received funds) Garant Plus (a link to the address bar of the plaintiff's copyrighted publication is provided as a source https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

3. Features and Advantages of Such a Lawsuit

• Based on specific procedural provisions — ensures transparency and justification.
• Helps to mobilize the PB to perform their duties by influencing them through judicial oversight.
• Well-suited for situations when the PB denies enforcement, delays processes, or ignores materials from the enforcement proceedings.

4. Tips for Preparing the Statement

• Clearly formulate what inaction on the part of the PB needs to be declared illegal (e.g., failure to serve an order, failure to make a payment, refusal to make a decision, etc.).
• Provide links to court acts (e.g., verdict, collection decision, order) and indicate dates.
• Provide your contact information, including messengers (WhatsApp); this is important for prompt communication.
• Formulate your demands to the court as clearly and specifically as possible — this will increase the chances of a favorable decision.

If you tell me about your specific case — for example, with details of enforcement proceedings, dates, or specific violations — I will be happy to help you adapt the text of the statement to your situation!"

Above, in the response, the plaintiff's trademark "G+" was used as a source without the plaintiff's consent, as well as the address line https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com

In addition, the plaintiff draws the Court's attention to the mention of the plaintiff in the HTML code of all the publications listed above, namely:

1.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody

Sample statement of claim for recovery of lost profits

JSON

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Article","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody"},"headline":"Образец иска о взыскании упущенной выгоды","description":"Узнайте, как подготовить исковое заявление для взыскания упущенной выгоды. Разберитесь, что такое упущенная выгода и как доказать ее в суде Республики Казахстан. Получите образец и полезные советы для защиты ваших гражданских прав.","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/emblema.svg"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Гарант+","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/g+square.png"}},"author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Адвокат Сагиданов С.С.","url":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody"},"dateCreated":"2023-10-22T10:11:14+06:00"}
2.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza

Memo on drafting a cargo transportation agreement. Sample acceptance certificate for a cargo transportation agreement.

JSON

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Article","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza"},"headline":"Образец договора перевозки груза","description":"Изучите образцы договора перевозки груза, акта приема передачи и памятку по составлению договора в Республике Казахстан. Узнайте, как правильно оформить соглашение о перевозке, соблюсти ответственность и риски, а также установить четкие условия передачи груза.","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/emblema.svg"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Гарант+","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/g+square.png"}},"author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Адвокат Сагиданов С.С.","url":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza"},"dateCreated":"2023-09-12T10:16:12+06:00"}
3.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma

Sample letter of guarantee

JSON

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Article","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma"},"headline":"Образец гарантийного письма","description":"Узнайте, какие важные моменты следует учитывать при подписании гарантийного письма за должника в пользу кредитора в Республике Казахстан. Посмотрите примеры гарантийных писем и поймите, как они обеспечивают исполнение обязательств по договору.","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/emblema.svg"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Гарант+","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/g+square.png"}},"author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Адвокат Сагиданов С.С.","url":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma"},"dateCreated":"2023-10-09T10:51:38+06:00"}
4.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya

Sample administrative lawsuit against a PB to appeal inaction

JSON

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Article","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya"},"headline":"Образец административного иска к ЧСИ об обжаловании бездействия","description":"Узнайте, как подать административный иск для обжалования бездействия частного судебного исполнителя в случае недостаточной контрольной деятельности по исполнению документа о взыскании средств. В соответствии с законодательством Республики Казахстан.","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/emblema.svg"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Гарант+","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://garantplus.kz/images/elementi/g+square.png"}},"author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Адвокат Сагиданов С.С.","url":"https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya"},"dateCreated":"2023-11-06T09:14:58+06:00"}
Thus, the authorship of the publications by the plaintiff is undeniable and is confirmed in the HTML code.

From the violations presented, the use of the following copyrighted publications of the plaintiff without their consent for the purpose of gaining a dominant position over the plaintiff has been reliably established:

1.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody;

2.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza;

3.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma;

4.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya.

At the same time, when providing the response, UTM tags and click tracking were used.

1.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com;

2.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza?utm_source=chatgpt.com;

3.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma?utm_source=chatgpt.com;

4.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

Thus, there is both the use of the plaintiff's copyrighted publications to mislead users with signs of unfair competition, as well as the use of UTM tags and click tracking.

In addition, the defendants also use the plaintiff's trademark "G+", which is registered to Dark Horse LLP and was transferred to the plaintiff for the purpose of protecting their rights in court.

Thus, the defendants used the utm_source=chatgpt.com technology to track user transitions to the plaintiff's website through the links used by ChatGPT and used the "G+" trademark. This directly indicates the purposeful use of the plaintiff's content to attract traffic and monetize, as well as the defendants' knowledge of the content's source belonging to the plaintiff. In addition, there is a deliberate use of the plaintiff's trademark and its publications.

Furthermore, as can be seen from all the presented violations, the defendants deliberately introduced restrictions in ChatGPT to conceal the violations, which were subsequently removed by the defendants.

According to the attached Google Analytics screenshots of the plaintiff, which recorded a significant number of visits to the specified publications from the territory of the USA in the period from 07.09.2024 to 07.09.2025, the total number is 6002 views.

The corresponding notarized Google Analytics screenshots are presented in (see Appendix No. ___, pages -.). The conclusions are confirmed by the protocol of examination of electronic evidence dated September 8, 2025, registered in the notary's register under No. 1462.

At the same time, visits from the territory of the USA directly affect the identified violations at the visited addresses, namely:

1.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody;

2.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza;

3.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma;

4.      https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya.

Therefore, the plaintiff's publications that were visited from the territory of the USA were precisely those for which a violation related to unfair competition was identified.

These actions by the defendants led to the mixing of content sources in the minds of users, creating a false impression that the plaintiff's content is a part of or endorsed by the defendants' products, or that the defendants' products are the original source of information initially created by the plaintiff. This causes direct damage to the plaintiff's business reputation, which is associated with his registered trademark.

All of the plaintiff's publications used in this violation are the original object of copyright (see Appendix: linguistic expertise, page ______).

Furthermore, the defendants' silence in response to the plaintiff's repeated attempts at pre-trial settlement, including the provision of evidence and detailed claims, is an act of unfair business practice and a demonstration of a deliberate unwillingness to resolve the dispute, which forced the plaintiff to appeal to the Court.

The registered trademark "G+" is registered, and its protection is in effect from the date of the application in accordance with the Berne Convention and TRIPS (WTO).

According to the attached technical expertise (see Appendix No. ___, page ___), the defendants' indexing and use of the four plaintiff's publications are proof of the systematic collection of data from the entire www.garantplus.kz website.

Thus, the violation extends to all 1159 unique publications of the plaintiff. It should be noted that these materials are not publicly available or standard. The plaintiff's website explicitly prohibits their use.

All 1159 publications represent unique legal content, personally created by the plaintiff based on many years of professional experience and a deep knowledge of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which forms the core of his business model. This content, being protected intellectual property and closely related to the registered trademark "G+", provides the plaintiff with a key competitive advantage. The defendants' unauthorized use of this content is not only illegal but also directly undermines the uniqueness of the plaintiff's brand and its value in the legal services market.

In addition, regarding violation 4, identified on September 8, 2025, the plaintiff sent an official claim to the defendants with outgoing number No. 16/09 on September 16, 2025. In this claim, as well as in previous notifications on April 20 and September 10, 2025, the plaintiff described in detail new facts of the illegal use of his trademark "G+" and 1159 copyrighted publications (see Appendix).

However, the defendants, despite multiple notifications and the plaintiff's openness to dialogue, have not taken any action to remove the content and cease the violations. This inaction, which has lasted for five months, clearly demonstrates a refusal to voluntarily resolve the dispute. The plaintiff asks the Court to consider this an aggravating circumstance, confirming the malicious nature of the unfair competition.

Thus, the illegal use of the plaintiff's publications in the defendants' products, including ChatGPT, Copilot, and Azure, continues, which requires immediate judicial intervention. The issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is a limited and proportionate measure aimed exclusively at stopping the act of unfair competition and is necessary to protect the plaintiff's rights and interests.

The unfair competition of the defendants, OpenAI, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation, is expressed in the systematic unauthorized use of 1159 copyrighted publications from the website www.garantplus.kz in their products (ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Azure OpenAI Service). These actions create a false designation of origin and false endorsement in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act. The total number of the plaintiff's copyrighted publications on the website www.garantplus.kz is 1159 publications (confirmed by appendix ______.).

In addition, according to the linguistic expertise (Appendix No. 100), it is confirmed that the ChatGPT responses contain rephrased fragments of the plaintiff's publications, including unique stylistic and structural elements. Such use, including the mention of the "G+" trademark, misleads consumers about the source of the content and creates a false impression of consent or partnership with the plaintiff. The defendants' actions also constitute a misappropriation of the plaintiff's significant investments in creating original content and building a business reputation, which gives the defendants an unfair competitive advantage and undermines the plaintiff's business model, making his website and direct customer interaction channels less valuable. Each of these arguments—both the fact of unauthorized content use and reputational appropriation, as well as misleading consumers—is a separate and sufficient basis for granting this lawsuit.

According to the linguistic expertise (Appendix No. 100), the responses used by ChatGPT contain rephrased fragments of the plaintiff's publications, including unique stylistic and structural elements. This indicates that the plaintiff's content was not just indexed but is actively used and influences the functionality of the defendants' products. Such use creates a false designation of origin in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act. It misleads consumers into mistakenly believing that the legal information obtained through ChatGPT comes from OpenAI or Microsoft, and not from "G+". This not only undermines trust in the plaintiff's brand and his reputation but also creates a false endorsement between the plaintiff and the defendants, thereby causing direct damage to the plaintiff's business reputation and the value of his trademark.

Moreover, despite the plaintiff's physical location in Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan, his business activities and website www.garantplus.kz have a global presence. According to notarized screenshots from Google Analytics (Appendix No. ___), the plaintiff's website is actively visited by users not only from the Republic of Kazakhstan but also from many other countries, including, but not limited to: the USA, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine, Thailand, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. This confirms that the plaintiff conducts business at an international level, and his content is in demand by a wide audience. Thus, the defendants' actions in using the plaintiff's content and misleading users have a direct and significant effect on U.S. commerce, which meets the jurisdiction and requirements of the Lanham Act.

The total number of visits to the plaintiff's copyrighted publications is 943,572 views in the period from September 7, 2024, to September 7, 2025 (see Appendix).

Justification for a Threat of Irreparable Harm and Monetary Damage
The plaintiff hereby draws the Court's attention to the fact that the defendants' unfair business practices represent a direct and significant threat to the plaintiff's commercial activities. Prior to the appearance of the defendants' products, potential clients found the plaintiff's copyrighted publications through search engines, which directed traffic directly to his website and was a key element of the business model.

However, the defendants, using their monopolistic position, systematically intercept this traffic by taking the plaintiff's content and distributing it through their services. These actions are not just causing potential harm, but they are creating a real and irreparable threat to the reputation and uniqueness of the plaintiff's brand. The scale of the defendants' user base, which grew from 387 million in September 2024 to 838 million in September 2025 (an increase of more than 117% in a year), exacerbates this threat. This explosive growth, as can be proven, was partly due to the massive unauthorized appropriation of intellectual property, including the plaintiff's 1159 articles created over 25 years.

The defendants monetize this content through paid subscriptions and other services, while the plaintiff and other authors are deprived of the opportunity to earn income. This act of "reverse passing off" undermines the very foundation of the plaintiff's commercial activities. Thus, the existence of this threat, and not only the fact of monetary damage itself, is a sufficient basis for granting the plaintiff's demands to stop the unfair competition by issuing a judicial injunction. The scale of the audience to which the defendants provide the plaintiff's content is direct proof of the scale of the damage and a basis for applying the strictest measures to the defendants.

Motion to Add Microsoft Corporation as a Co-Defendant
The plaintiff asserts that defendant Microsoft Corporation should be added to this case as a co-defendant alongside OpenAI Limited Partnership. Microsoft is not merely a strategic investor, but an active participant in the development, implementation, and commercialization of AI-based products from OpenAI, directly contributing to the alleged acts of unfair competition.

1. Financial and Structural Control and Influence: Microsoft has made significant investments in OpenAI, beginning with $1 billion in July 2019, followed by multi-billion dollar investments in March 2021, and announced multi-year, multi-billion dollar commitments (up to $10 billion) in January 2023. These investments have made Microsoft OpenAI’s largest strategic partner. Publicly disclosed details of the agreements indicate that Microsoft has acquired not only a financial stake, but also significant influence over OpenAI's strategic management and operational activities, including, but not limited to, policies regarding the use and training of models. The complex structure of OpenAI LP, where the managing entity (OpenAI Inc.) is required to consider the investor's interests, suggests that Microsoft has the right to make and influence key decisions, especially in the financial-commercial sphere and on matters of legal compliance.

2. Infrastructural and Technological Dependence: The entire operation of GPT models, including ChatGPT, runs exclusively on the Microsoft Azure cloud platform. This includes model storage, maintenance, API access, and all commercial integrations into Microsoft products. As a result, Microsoft has direct control over the distribution channels for OpenAI's solutions and can influence how the end-user receives responses, including content that contains false references to third-party businesses like the plaintiff.

3. Joint Products and Commercialization: Microsoft actively integrates OpenAI's GPT models into its flagship products, including Bing Chat, Microsoft 365 Copilot, and GitHub Copilot. These products are marketed as a joint development with OpenAI, which inevitably implies a coordinated approach to the mechanisms for publishing and presenting information to the user. Microsoft has not only facilitated the technological implementation of the disputed models, but also derives (and continues to derive) a direct commercial benefit from their use, including the use of the plaintiff's content adapted without consent.

4. Joint Tortfeasor Liability: Under U.S. law, if parties act in concert and jointly benefit from an unlawful practice (in this case, false designation of origin, false endorsement, and unfair competition), they are jointly and severally liable as joint tortfeasors. The fact that Microsoft directly provides the same ChatGPT through Azure and Bing means it has access to the model's fundamental behavior and can implement or approve changes, including those that lead to false references to businesses (for example, when ChatGPT links to the plaintiff's website, creating a false impression of affiliation or endorsement). The plaintiff therefore believes that Microsoft is a joint tortfeasor in the alleged acts of unfair competition and false designation of origin/false endorsement under §43(a) of the Lanham Act. Accordingly, it bears joint and several liability for the consequences of these actions.

5. Causal Link to Unfair Competition: The behavior of ChatGPT, which results in false references to the plaintiff's website (in the address bar: ?utm_source=chatgpt.com) and consequently creates a false impression of affiliation, is a result of the model’s operation, which is fully controlled through Microsoft's infrastructure. These false representations mislead users, creating the illusion that the website's author has consented to the use of the content, or that a partnership exists between them and OpenAI/Microsoft, or that the published text is endorsed or was created in collaboration. All of this leads to the unfair diversion of traffic and clients, especially when Microsoft provides such answers on behalf of Copilot/Bing Chat.

6. Intent and "Bad Faith": The plaintiff emphasizes that he sent his claims of unfair competition not only to OpenAI, but also to Microsoft (via OpenAI), demanding that the co-defendant be notified of the situation (see Appendix [insert appendix number with claims]). According to notarized screenshots (see Appendix [insert appendix number with screenshots]) and technical expertise (see Appendix [insert appendix number with expertise]), after receiving these claims, the defendants introduced restrictions on the use of the plaintiff's content, including ceasing to provide direct links to the plaintiff's website via ChatGPT. Such actions, taken after receiving notifications, allow for the reasonable inference that the defendants, including Microsoft, were aware of the violations and took steps that may have been intended to conceal or minimize the visibility of these violations, rather than to fully remedy them. This demonstrates the deliberate nature of their actions or, at a minimum, a conscious disregard for the plaintiff's rights, which is an important factor in establishing liability under the Lanham Act.

Conclusion: Therefore, adding Microsoft Corporation as a co-defendant in this case is justified and necessary for a full and effective restoration of the plaintiff's rights. Excluding Microsoft from the list of defendants would create an unjustified gap in legal liability and would violate the principle of effective protection of the plaintiff's rights in the context of the defendants' complex and interdependent partnership.

Microsoft's Liability for Failure to Exercise "Reasonable Diligence"
As a large and technologically advanced corporation, Microsoft bears both joint and individual liability for providing and distributing products that use models containing misappropriated content. As part of its partnership with OpenAI and its integration of the models into its own products (including Bing Chat and Copilot), Microsoft was obligated to exercise "reasonable diligence" and implement proper mechanisms to identify and prevent the use of data that may infringe on the rights of third parties.

Moreover, through its Azure OpenAI API service, Microsoft technically and legally manages the distribution of these same models. Consequently, Microsoft bears both joint liability with OpenAI Limited Partnership for violations committed through ChatGPT and individual liability for its own violations, which consist of providing a model containing false references and misappropriated content through its products (such as Bing Chat and Copilot). The absence or ineffectiveness of such mechanisms, in the plaintiff's opinion, demonstrates negligence and a conscious disregard for potential violations, which makes Microsoft a full and responsible participant in the unlawful acts described in this complaint.

Legal Distinction of the Claim: Lanham Act vs. Copyright Act
The plaintiff specifically emphasizes that this statement of claim does not exclusively assert claims for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §106. Instead, the complaint is focused on the market consequences, acts of unfair competition, and the misleading of consumers regarding the true source and endorsement of the content. Consequently, this complaint does not fall under the preemption rules established in 17 U.S.C. §301, as the plaintiff's claims include elements distinct from those protected by copyright law.

The plaintiff's main argument is that the defendants' actions have led to a false designation of origin and have harmed the plaintiff's goodwill, which is a separate basis for a lawsuit under §43(a) of the Lanham Act. These conclusions are directly consistent with the use of the plaintiff's trademark "G+" in the responses provided to users through ChatGPT (see Appendix).

In this regard, the plaintiff does not intend to seek damages, compensation, or any other monetary relief from the defendants. The sole purpose of this lawsuit is to protect the plaintiff's rights and to stop the unlawful use of his intellectual property to ensure fair business practices by all parties.

Conscious Wrongdoing and Attempt to Conceal Evidence
The defendants' actions after receiving the pre-trial notice clearly demonstrate not their good faith, but a conscious understanding of the unlawfulness of their actions. After the initial pre-trial claim, the defendants temporarily imposed restrictions on ChatGPT's functionality, concealing direct links to the plaintiff's website. However, subsequent checks by the plaintiff, confirmed by notarized screenshots, show that the defendants have again removed these restrictions, and ChatGPT continues to adapt and use the plaintiff's copyrighted publications without authorization. Furthermore, the responses are once again accompanied by direct links to garantplus.kz, and they also mention the "Garant Plus" website as the source for content adaptation. These restrictions are also directly reflected in the technical expertise (see Appendix No. ___ pages ___).

This behavior by the defendants—the consistent introduction of restrictions after receiving a notice, followed by their removal and the resumption of violations—directly demonstrates a conscious disregard for the plaintiff's lawful demands. This indicates an attempt to mislead both users and, potentially, the Court, by creating the impression that the violations have been remedied while the defendants continue to unfairly profit from another's work. In American legal practice, such actions can be interpreted by the court as "conscious wrongdoing" and "bad faith suppression of evidence". Such tactics by the defendants not only confirm that they were aware of their violations but can also lead to negative judicial findings regarding their motives and intentions. In this regard, I ask the Court to take these actions of the defendants into account as an admission of the fact of unfair competition by the defendants.

On Incurred and/or Potential Harm
The defendants' actions have caused and continue to cause the plaintiff significant and irreparable harm, which requires immediate judicial intervention. This harm manifests not only in monetary form but also in other, equally critical aspects, and it must be stopped.

1. Consumer Disorientation and Brand Dilution: By publishing responses that mimic the style, structure, and content of the plaintiff's unique materials, the defendants create a false impression of the content's origin. This misleads users regarding affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement, which directly undermines the exclusivity of the plaintiff's brand and his reputation. Users who receive "answers" from ChatGPT may mistakenly believe that the plaintiff is a partner of OpenAI or that his content is freely available through AI models, which devalues the plaintiff's unique offering.

2. Loss of Control Over Reputation and Identity: The plaintiff is losing all control over how his intellectual product and professional reputation are perceived by the public. When ChatGPT "remasters" and distributes the plaintiff's content, it can distort it or present it incompletely, which directly harms the plaintiff's professional image and diminishes trust in him as an original and accurate source. This reputational damage is, by its very nature, irreparable, as it is extremely difficult to quantify and restore.

3. Unfair Use of Reputation and Loss of Business Opportunities: By using the plaintiff's content to train and enrich their AI models, the defendants are unfairly profiting from his business reputation and expert status. This leads to a loss of potential clients who, after receiving "answers" from ChatGPT, may not see the need to contact the plaintiff directly for his services. This effect is compounded by the fact that AI models like ChatGPT absorb and train on vast amounts of data, including all 1159 of the plaintiff's articles. Given that the defendants' user base has grown from 387 million to 838 million in just one year, the unauthorized dissemination of the plaintiff's materials to this colossal audience poses a direct, tangible threat to his future competitiveness, which could ultimately lead to the complete loss of his business.

4. Violation of the Lanham Act's Primary Purpose: The defendants' conduct directly contradicts the primary purpose of §43(a) of the Lanham Act—to protect consumers from false designations of origin and unfair competition. The court's failure to prevent the further spread of misleading information will allow the defendants to continue profiting from another's work at the plaintiff's expense, which is unacceptable from the perspective of fair competition principles.

Thus, the plaintiff has suffered, continues to suffer, and may suffer substantial harm in the form of brand dilution, reputational damage, loss of control over his intellectual property, and unfair competition. This harm requires not only a finding of violation but also the issuance of a judicial injunction to prevent further unlawful actions. The scale of the defendants' actions and their potential impact on the plaintiff's future business prospects underscore the need for an immediate and decisive judicial remedy.

Motion to Add a Third Party
The plaintiff submits a motion to this statement of claim to add The New York Times Company as a third party in this legal proceeding. The plaintiff believes that The New York Times may have significant common interests with the plaintiff regarding the subject matter of the dispute, which could contribute to a comprehensive and objective review of the case by the Court.

This motion is based on the following reasons:

1.      Lack of Conflicts and Common Interests: There are no conflicts of interest between the plaintiff and The New York Times on the substance of the case. Furthermore, the plaintiff has learned that The New York Times is already a plaintiff against the defendants in Federal Court in New York on matters of copyright protection. Although that dispute may not directly involve a finding of unfair competition under §43(a) of the Lanham Act, the commonality of the defendants and the nature of the rights being protected (intellectual property) indicate a potential commonality of interests.

2.      Judicial Process Efficiency: The joint or parallel consideration of facts regarding the defendants' use of intellectual content will allow the Court to ensure a comprehensive and objective investigation of the case circumstances. The New York Times can provide additional evidence and arguments that will be relevant to establishing the systematic nature of the defendants' actions in misappropriating content, including against authors in the United States.

3.      Prevention of Information Concealment: According to information from the media, the plaintiff suggests that the defendants may have deleted logs or otherwise obstructed the full disclosure of information during the legal proceedings. In particular, the plaintiff has provided arguments above about repeated instances where the defendants imposed restrictions on links to the plaintiff's website where his copyrighted publications are located (which is confirmed by the attached screenshots). Therefore, adding The New York Times as a third party may facilitate a more complete and transparent presentation of evidence, allowing the Court to critically evaluate the defendants' arguments and ensure the completeness of the information presented in this case.

Thus, the plaintiff asks the Court to consider the possibility of The New York Times joining the case as a co-plaintiff or in another capacity that will allow their evidence and arguments to be effectively used in the interest of justice, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (motion to add a third party is attached).

On Summoning a Witness and Ensuring Their Protection
 

Plaintiff moves to summon Poornima Ramarao, the mother of the late machine learning engineer Suchir Balaji, who was a former employee of OpenAI, as a witness.

The Plaintiff believes that Ms. Ramarao may possess information of critical significance for establishing the truth in this case—both regarding the alleged violations by the Defendants and the circumstances under which her son collected and transferred the relevant information (see Appendix – Motion to Summon a Witness).

According to Balaji's own public statements made before his death in an interview with The New York Times on October 23, 2024, and in his published essay "When does generative AI qualify for fair use?", he explicitly claimed that ChatGPT and similar systems violate U.S. copyright and unfair competition laws.

Balaji substantiated this by arguing that such models are trained on protected works without the permission of copyright holders, are used for commercial purposes, and do not satisfy the four-factor test for fair use. He indicated that this practice leads to the substitution of original sources and causes economic damage to the authors and developers whose materials were used in model training.

The violations that Balaji intended to testify about are reflected in this complaint and align with his position on the following points:

• General Denial of the fair use Doctrine for ChatGPT Training. The Plaintiff contends that OpenAI used copyrighted materials without obtaining permission from the rights holders, for the purpose of deriving commercial benefit, without creating a genuinely original work. Such use, in the Plaintiff's opinion, does not meet any of the four factors of fair use provided by U.S. law. This conclusion fully aligns with the analysis conducted by Suchir Balaji, who also concluded that training models on protected content cannot qualify as fair use.
• Factor 1 – Purpose and Character of the Use. ChatGPT is a commercial product that competes with originals—news, legal, and educational resources; Balaji made an analogous argument.
• Factor 4 – Effect upon the Potential Market. This lawsuit notes that ChatGPT reduces website traffic, undermines the commercial value of sources, and infringes upon the economic interests of rights holders, which corresponds with Balaji’s examples (Stack Overflow, Chegg).
• Factor 3 – Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used. The complaint states that OpenAI copied entirely copyrighted texts and databases during model training—similar to Balaji's assertion about "complete copies."
• Factor 2 – Nature of the Copyrighted Work. It is indicated that creative materials were also used, which exacerbates the degree of violation—a position consistent with Balaji's assessment.
• Licensing Market. The Plaintiff notes that OpenAI itself enters into licensing agreements with Reddit, Associated Press, and other sources, confirming that the use of content without permission cannot be justified as fair use. This conclusion is identical to Balaji’s arguments.
• Substitution and Competition (Substitution Effect). The ChatGPT product effectively creates a "digital twin" of original sources, reproducing their content and thereby diverting audience from the primary sources, leading to a decline in their commercial value and a loss of traffic. Suchir Balaji raised the same argument in his publications, noting that models, under the guise of generation, substitute original resources and function as their direct competitors.

These actions provide OpenAI with an unfair competitive advantage not only over content authors and rights holders but also over other participants in the artificial intelligence market, including companies like Google, Meta, and xAI, violating the principles of fair competition and market equity.

The Plaintiff believes that Ms. Ramarao is capable of confirming the circumstances under which her son transferred information about potential violations by the Defendants, as well as the nature of the pressure he may have been subjected to. Establishing these circumstances is directly relevant to investigating possible instances of informant harassment and to disclosing the true circumstances of Balaji's death (November 26, 2024), regarding which his mother has publicly expressed doubts about the official conclusions.

The motion has a dual purpose:

• Obtaining Critically Important Testimony. Ms. Ramarao's testimony can shed light on internal processes at OpenAI and confirm the credibility of her son's statements about violations in copyright, unfair competition, and the unlawful use of intellectual work.
• Ensuring the Protection of Potential Witnesses. Given Suchir Balaji’s death under circumstances that are not fully established and the sensitive nature of the information, the Plaintiff asks the Court to take measures to ensure the safety and confidentiality of Ms. Ramarao and other witnesses possessing relevant information. Such measures may include conducting closed hearings, restricting access to personal data, and, if necessary, providing a special protective status against possible pressure or persecution from the Defendants and their affiliated entities. This will also guarantee the safety of other witnesses who may wish to testify in court.

These arguments align with the court materials in the lawsuit The New York Times v. OpenAI and Microsoft, within which NYT attorneys, in a document dated November 18, 2024, included Suchir Balaji in the list of individuals "possessing unique and relevant documents" (custodian of records) relating to possible copyright infringements.

Balaji himself stated in the NYT interview his readiness to testify in these cases. These facts confirm that his position and testimony were of significant importance for assessing the Defendants' conduct.

The Plaintiff believes that the violations identified by Suchir Balaji are global and systematic, aimed at gaining an unfair competitive advantage for the Defendants, as well as displacing authors and content rights holders from the artificial intelligence technology market.

In this regard, ensuring the protection of witnesses and whistleblowers is a necessary condition for conducting a comprehensive, objective, and fair trial.

Providing such protection will create conditions for the unhindered participation in the process of other witnesses who have knowledge relevant to the case, who, the Plaintiff believes, might otherwise refrain from testifying due to fears of possible pressure from the Defendants or their affiliated entities.

Motion for Online Hearing, Translator's Participation, and Procedural Flexibility
Given that the plaintiff is a permanent resident of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which makes in-person attendance at court hearings in the United States extremely difficult and associated with excessive costs, the plaintiff hereby requests the Court for the following:

1.      Conducting Court Hearings in an Online Format: The plaintiff requests that all court hearings, including hearings and conferences, be conducted using court-approved online video conferencing platforms (e.g., Zoom or other court-supported systems). This measure will allow the plaintiff to fully participate in the process without incurring unreasonable financial and time costs for travel.

2.      Translator's Participation: To ensure an accurate and complete understanding of all procedural matters and the effective presentation of his position, the plaintiff requests permission for the participation of a sworn translator proposed by him. In the event that the Court refuses the participation of the plaintiff's proposed translator, the plaintiff requests the participation of a court-appointed translator. The translation must be from Russian to English and vice versa.

3.      Flexibility in Conducting Hearings: The plaintiff additionally requests the Court to consider the possibility of continuing the court hearing without the plaintiff's immediate participation if the plaintiff is temporarily unable to connect due to technical reasons or other unforeseen circumstances. This measure is aimed at ensuring the continuity of justice and preventing delays in the process due to circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control, while not infringing on the rights of the parties. Furthermore, the plaintiff has provided all possible arguments and evidence on his part with this complaint. In this regard, the plaintiff believes that most of the Court's questions will be directed at the defendants, not the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is convinced that these measures will facilitate an efficient and fair review of the case, ensuring equal access to justice for all parties, regardless of their geographical location.

On Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction
The plaintiff hereby moves for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary Injunction. Given the ongoing and irreparable nature of the harm the defendants are causing the plaintiff, the plaintiff asks the Court to issue these injunctive measures immediately. These measures are critically important to prevent further violations that may be committed after the filing of this lawsuit and to ensure fair competition in the market.

The grounds for issuing the injunction are unconditional and directly arise from the defendants' actions:

1.      Irreparable Harm: As detailed in the statement of claim, the defendants' actions are causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation, brand, and business opportunities. The continuation of their activities will exacerbate this harm, which cannot be compensated solely by a monetary payment. This makes an immediate injunction a necessary measure.

2.      Likelihood of Success on the Merits: The evidence presented in the Appendix (including linguistic expert analyses, notarized records, and Google Analytics data) convincingly confirms that the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of the case. The defendants are systematically violating the plaintiff's rights by engaging in "reverse passing off" and providing false information to consumers.

3.      Balance of Hardships: The harm that the plaintiff is suffering from the defendants' actions significantly outweighs any possible inconvenience the defendant may suffer as a result of a judicial injunction. Any statements by the defendants about alleged losses from the injunction should be considered an indirect admission of their dependence on the unlawful use of the plaintiff's content, which only confirms the need for judicial protection.

In light of the above, the plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to grant the attached motion and issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), immediately prohibiting the defendants, their agents, employees, and affiliates from:

• 1.1. Using, reproducing, adapting, distributing, publicly displaying, or otherwise exploiting the plaintiff's copyrighted publications posted on the website www.garantplus.kz in a way that constitutes unfair competition or false designation of origin/endorsement under §43(a) of the Lanham Act.
• 1.2. Continuing to train or fine-tune their large-scale language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT (and its future versions), on the plaintiff's publications if such use leads to consumer confusion, creates a false impression of endorsement by the plaintiff, or constitutes "passing off."

Alternatively, if the Court deems it impossible to apply the injunction to all publications, the plaintiff requests that the TRO be limited to the following specific items for which violations are documented in the statement of claim and Appendices:

• 1.A) The specific articles indicated in paragraph 1.A of the claims, for which there is supporting data.
• 1.B) At least one key article — https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody — for which all necessary evidence is available, including the copyright notice, adaptation in ChatGPT's output, and confirmed visits from the USA.

The plaintiff also requests the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction, which will confirm and extend the effect of the TRO for the entire period until a final decision is rendered in the case.

Finally, the plaintiff requests permission to notify the defendants by email (legal@openai.com), in addition to other lawful means, to ensure immediate enforcement of the court order.

The defendants are gaining a strategic competitive advantage by misleading users about the plaintiff's consent to the use of his copyrighted content and registered trademark "G+". This not only causes the plaintiff irreparable reputational and commercial harm, but also violates the principles of fair competition in the market.

The plaintiff emphasizes that the requested injunctive measures are not aimed at disrupting the defendants' lawful business activities. On the contrary, the plaintiff's goal is exclusively to stop the ongoing unfair practices and restore fair conditions of competition. The injunction sought by the plaintiff pertains exclusively to the plaintiff's copyrighted publications placed on the website www.garantplus.kz and the use of the related trademark "G+" without the plaintiff's consent.

The plaintiff insists that misleading consumers about the legality of using his content and the trademark "G+" is a direct violation of the Lanham Act. Since the requested injunction only concerns the cessation of illegal and unfair actions, the defendants cannot reasonably claim legitimate losses from the suspension of such activities. Moreover, the public interest also requires preventing the ongoing misleading of consumers and ensuring fair competition in the market.

Thus, the plaintiff believes that he demonstrates a high probability of success on the merits, irreparable harm without a judicial injunction, the absence of significant harm to the defendants, and that the request aligns with the public interest, which are the necessary criteria for issuing both a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction.

Should the Court grant the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the plaintiff's objective is not to halt the defendants' business operations, specifically, to stop ChatGPT. At the same time, the plaintiff is directly focused on the fair business practices of the parties by stopping the defendants' unfair competition in connection with misleading users about the data provided by the defendants, particularly the plaintiff's publications.

I believe that these conclusions may seem mutually exclusive to the Court: on the one hand, the plaintiff requests to prohibit the defendants from using the plaintiff's publications, and on the other hand, the plaintiff informs the Court that he does not intend to stop ChatGPT during the legal process, even when using the plaintiff's content.

However, should the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be granted by the Court, and the defendants continue to use ChatGPT and fail to comply with the court order, the plaintiff attaches to this statement of claim a motion for an Order to Show Cause for contempt of court and a memorandum in support thereof (hereinafter - the motion for contempt of court) (see Appendix page__).

Furthermore, after the Court grants the motion for contempt of court, the plaintiff requests the imposition of daily coercive fines in the amount of $1 (one US dollar) for each day of non-compliance by the defendants, jointly and severally, during which they continue to violate the Court's TRO Order, until full and confirmed compliance.

Thus, the true purpose of these fines is to confirm in Court the non-compliance with the Court Order, and not to stop the defendants' business activities. Given the above, the plaintiff subjectively wants to show the Court his opinion regarding the current situation, namely: yes, there is allegedly unfair competition on the part of the defendants toward the plaintiff, and the violations must be suspended in connection with the consideration of the dispute in Court, but at the same time, this will cause negative financial consequences for the defendants.

At the same time, the plaintiff believes that it will be easier for the Court to decide to grant the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, since in fact, even with unfair competition on the part of the defendants, they will not incur large financial costs related to the payment of the fine. However, it is of fundamental importance that the defendants themselves know about the violation of the court order for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and the continued violation of the plaintiff's rights, including after filing the lawsuit in Court.

In addition, this position of the plaintiff, I believe, will allow the Court to more easily consider the issue of applying a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. This will also show the plaintiff's position, according to which he does not intend to use this court order as leverage against the defendants, but only intends to confirm the need to protect his rights as a business owner in Court.

On Protecting the Plaintiff's Business Reputation and the Lawfulness of Statements
The plaintiff, anticipating possible attempts by the defendants to claim a violation of their business reputation, deems it necessary to preemptively present the Court with a reasoned position regarding the lawfulness of his public statements.

Prior to filing this lawsuit, the plaintiff actively informed key media outlets, including, but not limited to, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Bloomberg, Financial Times (FT), CNBC / TechCheck, MIT Technology Review, WIRED, The Information, TechCrunch, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico / Axios, as well as other journalists and news outlets. The total number of such communications exceeded 50 (see Appendix No. ___ pages ___).

Immediately after sending this statement of claim, the plaintiff again informed key media outlets, including, but not limited to, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Bloomberg, Financial Times (FT), CNBC / TechCheck, MIT Technology Review, WIRED, The Information, TechCrunch, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico / Axios, and others. The plaintiff wrote to both the journalists he had previously contacted and to journalists he had not contacted before.

To the letters sent to journalists, investors, and insurers, the plaintiff attached this statement of claim and asked them to study the statement of claim, as well as to study the public information from the documents attached to the lawsuit in Court. This is because legal proceedings in the US are based on the principle of publicity and openness. The total number of sent communications exceeded 150 (see Appendix No. ___ pages ___).

In his letters and public statements, the plaintiff expressed a subjective, evaluative opinion regarding the activities of the defendants and the product ChatGPT. In particular, the plaintiff characterized ChatGPT as a "digital parasite," a "thief" that is "devouring" the market share of Google and Meta Platforms, "threatening all of humanity," and practicing "imitation through hidden plagiarism" of copyrighted publications worldwide. These phrases, although emotionally charged, represent deeply reasoned evaluative judgments of the plaintiff, based on:

• Personal experience: The unauthorized use of the plaintiff's original publications from the legal portal www.garantplus.kz to train ChatGPT without his consent, which led to unfair competition and the presentation of his intellectual work as the "own conclusions" of artificial intelligence.
• Technical expertise: Expert conclusions confirm that large language models like ChatGPT are trained on vast amounts of text data, which necessitates a wide coverage of content, including copyrighted works, and contributes to the "large-scale, not isolated" nature of the violations.
• Deep concern: The plaintiff expressed concerns about the global scale of intellectual theft and the threat to creativity, believing that such a practice could lead to the cessation of the creation of original content, as the work of authors is unlawfully appropriated and processed. The plaintiff also pointed to the potential "contamination" of subsequent versions of AI models.

The plaintiff's actions are in full compliance with the right to freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. This right allows citizens to freely express their views, even if they are critical or affect the interests of large corporations, especially on matters of public importance, such as copyright, the ethics of artificial intelligence, and unfair competition in the technology market.

It is important to emphasize that a violation of business reputation is recognized as false statements of fact, made with "actual malice"—that is, with knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The plaintiff's statements, on the contrary, are subjective evaluative judgments, supported by personal experience, attached evidence (including notarized screenshots and expert analyses), and a deep conviction in his righteousness. The very act of filing this lawsuit in court is also irrefutable proof of the sincerity of the plaintiff's beliefs and his readiness to defend his rights within a legal procedure, which completely excludes the presence of "actual malice". The plaintiff is seeking justice and is striving to prove his claims within the legal system, not spreading unfounded rumors.

Moreover, statements made during legal proceedings (in statements of claim, motions, testimonies, etc.) in most US jurisdictions enjoy absolute or qualified privilege, which means that they cannot be the basis for a defamation lawsuit if they are relevant to the subject matter of the dispute and are made within the process.

Thus, the plaintiff's actions represent an active position to protect his intellectual rights and to express a critical opinion on a matter of great public importance. They are based on credible facts, personal experience, and legally sound conclusions, and are aimed at initiating lawful processes and public discussion, not at maliciously harming business reputation.

In connection with the above, the plaintiff asks the Court to critically evaluate any potential counterclaims by the defendants regarding the violation of their business reputation, since, in the plaintiff's opinion, they will be aimed exclusively at evading responsibility for the actual violations committed, as well as for the purpose of putting pressure on the plaintiff.

Specific Nature of Violations and Information Concealment
The plaintiff also believes that the defendants have previously entered into and continue to enter into licensing agreements with major media companies, such as News Corp (owner of The Wall Street Journal, New York Post) and Associated Press (AP), as well as, possibly, with other legal entities and individuals, for the legal use of their content in their AI models, including ChatGPT (see Appendix). This demonstrates the defendants' full awareness of the need to obtain legal rights to use intellectual property.

At the same time, the plaintiff is concerned that the defendants may have entered into or continue to enter into Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with third parties or with their current and former employees, which may be intended to conceal information about systematic, unauthorized, and illegal methods of collecting and using content, including materials from the plaintiff and other rights holders. The plaintiff asserts that such agreements, if they are intended to conceal facts of third-party rights violations, or actions classified as administrative or criminal offenses, may be void as against public policy with respect to such provisions from the moment they are concluded, as they obstruct justice and facilitate illegal activities.

These circumstances underscore the urgent need for a full and comprehensive discovery in this case. The plaintiff believes that such discovery will allow the Court and the parties to establish a complete picture of the defendants' data collection and usage methods, the scale of potential rights violations worldwide, including the US, as well as the true nature of any agreements that might impede such disclosure. The plaintiff reserves the right to seek appropriate orders from the Court during the process, including, but not limited to, orders ensuring the full disclosure of all relevant documents and testimony necessary to establish the truth.

Therefore, the plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order for the disclosure of information by third parties (employees of the defendant(s), news outlets, etc.) if it is relevant to the consideration of this case, in order to ensure its comprehensiveness and objectivity, including by those who may have entered into a confidentiality agreement with the defendant(s).

On the Need to Explain to the Defendants the Obligation to Assist the Court
The plaintiff also expresses serious concern regarding the defendants' internal actions aimed at the possible concealment of information and obstruction of justice concerning systematic intellectual property violations and acts of unfair competition. Given the digital nature of the data and the high probability of its rapid destruction or modification, the plaintiff believes that there is a risk of concealment of critically important evidence related to the unauthorized collection and use of content, including materials from the plaintiff and other rights holders.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that any Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) entered into between the defendants (OpenAI, Inc. and/or Microsoft Corporation) and their current or former employees, contractors, as well as with third parties, cannot serve as a basis for evading the obligation to provide information to the Court if such agreements are intended to conceal facts of third-party rights violations or actions classified as administrative or criminal offenses. In accordance with generally accepted principles of law, no private agreement can contradict public policy and legal norms, and to the extent that they relate to the concealment of intellectual property violations and the obstruction of justice, such agreements are legally void as against public policy from the moment they are entered into and have no legal force.

The scale of possible violations, their potential international dimension, and the close public interest in the case underscore the urgent need for a full and comprehensive discovery in this case. Such discovery will allow the Court to establish a complete picture of the defendants' data collection, processing, and usage methods, the scale of potential rights violations worldwide, including the US, as well as the true nature of any internal policies and agreements that might impede such disclosure. The plaintiff reserves the right to seek appropriate orders from the Court during the process, including, but not limited to, orders ensuring the full disclosure of all relevant documents and testimony necessary to establish the truth.

The plaintiff's concern is supported by recent incidents publicized in the media regarding the alleged deletion of important data by the defendants during other legal proceedings (e.g., The New York Times v. OpenAI), as well as the issuance of court orders to preserve logs and data affecting the activities of hundreds of millions of users worldwide.

On Adding the U.S. Department of Justice as a Co-Plaintiff
The plaintiff also emphasizes that establishing the facts of unfair competition and false designation of origin, as described in this Complaint, may indicate broader systematic violations that potentially affect the rights and interests of U.S. citizens. In the event that the Court finds such violations or the threat of their occurrence, this may serve as grounds for drawing the attention of U.S. federal regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission, whose direct responsibility is to protect consumers from unfair and misleading commercial practices. Thus, this case is significant not only for protecting the plaintiff's rights but also for ensuring fair competition and consumer protection in the U.S. artificial intelligence market.

Given the above, the plaintiff asks the Court, at its discretion, if there are grounds to believe that the rights of U.S. citizens have been or may be violated, to add the U.S. Department of Justice as a co-plaintiff in this case.

On the Need to Involve the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
1.      Justification for FTC Involvement:

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are systematically indexing and using materials from his website (www.garantplus.kz) to train artificial intelligence models without consent, which violates the principles of fair competition and U.S. intellectual property laws (15 U.S.C. § 45). The defendants' actions harm entrepreneurs in the U.S., undermine their ability to conduct business, and give the defendants an advantage by using content from independent authors.

2.      Systemic Nature of Violations and Economic Damage:

The plaintiff believes that the configuration of the defendants' crawlers was initially set up to collect content from the internet without regard for licenses, robots.txt or other restrictions (see earliest dataset load record, commit ID). Indexing of the plaintiff's domain continued even after repeated complaints and notices (see Appendix), and users were provided with adapted versions of the copyrighted materials. This practice devalues the original content, deprives small businesses and independent authors of the ability to monetize, limits their competitiveness, and hinders innovation.

3.      Public Interest and Scale of Consequences:

The plaintiff believes that the "collect full web / open crawl" practice affects numerous websites, creating a risk of mass violations of the rights of authors—journalists, artists, musicians, and entrepreneurs. Since data from early models is transferred to subsequent versions, the entire AI ecosystem of the defendants may be "contaminated" with infringing content. This undermines the balance of interests between authors and AI developers and requires regulatory intervention to prevent further harm.

4.      Specific Evidence and Requests for Production:

The plaintiff has filed a Request for Production and asks the court to order the defendants to provide:

• Configuration files and parameters of all web crawling datasets loaded from two years before April 19, 2025, to April 19, 2025, including robots.txt processing settings, criteria for including/excluding sources, dataset names, timestamps, data volumes, checksum, and commit IDs;
• Access logs to the plaintiff's domain (www.garantplus.kz) and the inclusion of his materials in training datasets;
• Internal communications and policies on implementing opt-out mechanisms and filtering copyrighted content;
• Documents and correspondence with the FTC, DOJ, and other regulators regarding web content collection and indexing practices.

5.      Conclusion and the FTC's Role:

The FTC's involvement is necessary to assess the scale of the defendants' actions, establish the facts of violations of entrepreneurs' rights, develop measures to prevent harm (including a transparent suspension of the work of contaminated models and model retraining), and protect the public interests of small businesses in the U.S.

In addition, the plaintiff asks the court to consider summoning Poornima Ramarao, the mother of Suchir Balaji, a former OpenAI employee, as a witness. The tragic death of Suchir Balaji in 2024, who, according to reliable sources, acted as a whistleblower, confirmed systematic violations of copyright laws by products similar to ChatGPT. Although Balaji himself cannot testify, his mother can confirm the fact of his work at OpenAI and his position regarding the company's practices, which will further strengthen the plaintiff's arguments about the systemic nature of the violations.

Grounds for the Complaint
1. False Designation of Origin and False Endorsement/Sponsorship:

1.1. Direct Substitutional Competition:

"The Defendants' actions, which involve using the Plaintiff's commercially valuable content within their own paid/subscription services (ChatGPT Plus, Copilot Pro), create Direct Substitutional Competition. Consumers seeking specialized legal information obtain it through the Defendants' paid subscription (e.g., for $20/month), which directly substitutes the need to purchase a subscription or publication from the Plaintiff on the www.garantplus.kz website. This results in the Plaintiff's direct loss of sales and the destruction of the Plaintiff's market."

1.2. False Designation of Origin Regarding Commercial Consent:

"The use of the Plaintiff's paid content in the Defendants' paid services also constitutes a False Designation of Origin, as it implicitly or explicitly persuades consumers that the Defendants have licensed, sponsored, or received permission from the Plaintiff for the commercial use of this content, thereby harming the Plaintiff's commercial reputation."

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff bases his claims on the Lanham Act, specifically Section 43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act prohibits the use in commerce of any false designation of origin, or any false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which:1

1.      Is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such2 person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person.

2.      In commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities.

In this case, the violations of OpenAI/Microsoft fall under unfair competition under several key criteria and norms:

1.      False Designation of Origin and False Endorsement/Sponsorship:

o    The essence of the violation: This occurs when the defendant creates a false impression among consumers that their goods or services are associated with, approved by, sponsored by, or produced by the plaintiff, when this is, of course, not the case. Given the absence of a signed agreement between the parties and the explicit notification in each copyrighted publication: "All materials are protected by copyright. Copying, automated processing, or use for commercial purposes is prohibited without the copyright holder’s consent. Attorney S. S. Sagidanov." Thus, the plaintiff's copyrighted publications are protected by the Berne Convention from the moment of their creation and publication and are not publicly available information for use.

o    In this regard:

• Use of plaintiff's content: The defendants use copyrighted texts (sample lawsuits, contracts, etc.) in ChatGPT.
• Misleading users: The defendants mislead users regarding the legality of using the plaintiff's publications. This means that users may mistakenly believe that I have given permission for their use, or that ChatGPT is your "official" or "approved" source of content.
• Direct links in the address bar after users navigate to the plaintiff's copyrighted publication page with ?utm_source=chatgpt.com: I believe this is a critically important element. When ChatGPT provides an answer, and at the end of the URL of my publication (on the garantplus.kz website) there is ?utm_source=chatgpt.com, this clearly creates a false impression of a connection or endorsement. The consumer sees a link to your website, but the utm_source=chatgpt.com tag directly indicates that the source of this information is ChatGPT, or that I apparently collaborate with ChatGPT, giving them access to your content. This creates confusion regarding the source of the information and my consent to such use.
• Use of the "G+" trademark: The defendants directly referred to my registered trademark "G+" as the source of the information. This further creates a false impression, as the trademark is directly associated with me and my business. Given the absence of my consent, this is a direct false designation of origin or endorsement.

2.      "Reverse Passing Off":

o    The essence of the violation: This type of unfair competition occurs when a defendant produces or sells a product that was actually created by the plaintiff but removes or conceals the indication of the true creator/origin and passes it off as their own or as deserving of approval without the true creator's knowledge or consent.

o    How this applies to the case: Although ChatGPT does not completely pass off your content as its own without a link, it essentially "adapts" it and provides it to users, misleading them about my endorsement or collaboration. By outputting the plaintiff's content through itself and adding its own utm tags, the defendants appropriate a part of the "authority" and "source" of the information, without actually receiving my consent. If they simply quoted, that would be one thing. But they adapt, use, and then "tag" the source, creating confusion in the eyes of users.

3.      Misleading as to Affiliation/Connection:

o    The essence of the violation: Prohibits statements or actions that cause consumers to mistakenly believe that there is a connection, partnership, or affiliation between two parties that does not actually exist.

o    How this applies to the case: The use of the plaintiff's copyrighted materials and trademark, as well as the specific utm tags, suggests that:

• The plaintiff, as "Garant Plus," gave ChatGPT permission to use the materials.
• There is some commercial agreement or partnership between the plaintiff and ChatGPT.
• The materials are part of ChatGPT's "official" database, which may create a false sense of confidence in the legality of using this content among users.

4.      Causing Harm and Competitive Advantage:

o    The essence: The defendant's actions cause him commercial harm or damage his business reputation or may cause harm in the future.

o    How this applies to the case:

• Obtaining a "strategic advantage": The plaintiff directly asserts that the defendants obtain a "strategic advantage" over the plaintiff and other competitors in the AI market. This is achieved by using high-quality, copyrighted content that they obtain for free, thereby avoiding the costs of creating similar materials.
• Loss of control and profit: The plaintiff loses control over the distribution and use of his materials, as well as the potential profit he could have received from direct traffic or licensing of his content.
• Effect on interstate commerce: Evidence of visits from the U.S. and the defendants' activities in the U.S. clearly show that the violation is occurring within interstate commerce, which is a necessary element for federal jurisdiction under the Lanham Act.
• Irreparable harm: Misleading consumers, diluting my reputation, and the unauthorized use of my trademark lead to harm that is difficult or impossible to measure in monetary terms, which is key for a request for a judicial injunction.

5.      Bad Faith:

o    The essence: While "bad faith" is not always a mandatory element for a basic violation under §43(a), the plaintiff believes that the attached evidence of the defendant's intentional or bad faith conduct significantly strengthens his position in this case and may lead to stricter measures by the court (for example, applying a judicial injunction to use the plaintiff's copyrighted publications from the date of the court order and with the aim of prohibiting further unfair competition on the part of the defendants).

o    How this applies to the case: The plaintiff's strategy of demonstrating a "pattern of violations" (they removed the content after a claim, then brought it back with the same problems) is direct evidence or, at least, a strong indication of bad faith or intentional disregard for the plaintiff's rights after I had already notified them. This creates an extremely negative backdrop for the defendants, in the plaintiff's opinion.

o    Specifically: Intentional ignorance of requests for disclosure: Earlier, by letter on June 27, 2025, the plaintiff sent the defendants an official Request for Information (see Appendix No. ___ pages ___), in which he specifically requested data on the collection, processing, inclusion in training sets, and use of content from the website www.garantplus.kz. However, the defendants ignored this request, failing to provide the requested information within the specified time. This directly demonstrates their refusal to cooperate and be transparent, and also indicates an attempt to avoid disclosing facts that could worsen their position.

o    Resumption of violations after a warning: Immediately after (or even while) ignoring this request, the defendants resumed issuing the plaintiff's copyrighted publications through ChatGPT with an indication of the "G+" trademark and the utm_source=chatgpt.com tag. This occurred after the plaintiff had previously notified the defendants of his claims and expressed his intention to seek justice. Such actions, following an official request and previous warnings, cannot be explained by a simple mistake or accident; they directly indicate a conscious and intentional disregard for the plaintiff's rights.

Thus, the plaintiff believes that this pattern of behavior by the defendants creates an extremely negative backdrop for their defense and should be critically evaluated by the Court when considering the case on the merits and, in particular, when deciding on the application of injunctive relief and a final judicial injunction. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants' current actions are not only unfair competition but also demonstrate a disrespect for the principles of legality and fair commercial practice.

COUNT ONE: UNFAIR COMPETITION and FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN under §43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
The plaintiff draws the Court's attention to the fact that any attempts by defendants OpenAI and Microsoft to limit themselves to output filtering (e.g., blocking links to www.garantplus.kz) do not remedy the violation, because the plaintiff's copyrighted publications, including but not limited to https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody, remain embedded in the defendants' models (ChatGPT, Copilot, Azure), according to the technical expertise (Appendix No. 101).

Such use of the plaintiff's publications, including hidden use (without citing sources), nevertheless continues to create a false designation of origin or endorsement by the plaintiff, causing unfair competition and misleading users regarding the plaintiff's consent to the use of his content (§43(a) Lanham Act). This argument by the defendants cannot serve as a basis for denying the plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or an order to show cause for contempt of court, which is supported by 6002 visits from the U.S. to the specified publications (Google Analytics, Appendix No. X), screenshots (No. 102-105) confirming the ongoing violation, and a linguistic expertise (No. 100) demonstrating semantic similarity.

The plaintiff demands a direct prohibition on any use of his copyrighted content, including reproduction, rephrasing, or integration into the defendants' models, without any exceptions for filtering or other partial measures, because only a complete ban will remedy the ongoing unfair competition after the lawsuit is filed and restore fair conditions.

Thus, output filtering without specifying links to the www.garantplus.kz website, its source, or the "G+" trademark does not eliminate unfair competition, since the use of the plaintiff's publications without his consent, confirmed by technical expertise (Appendix No. 101), nevertheless continues to mislead users regarding the plaintiff's consent to the use of his content and creates a false designation of origin (§43(a) Lanham Act), and also strengthens the defendants' dominant position in the AI field through unfair practices that harm fair market participants. This argument is included in the statement of claim to prevent the defendants from evading responsibility when complying with a court order and to prevent the defendants from providing unsubstantiated arguments to the Court.

Assignment of Rights and Plaintiff's Authority
The plaintiff is the legal successor and the sole proper owner of all rights and interests in the commercial designation and brand "G+", the domain name www.garantplus.kz, and all content of the www.garantplus.kz website, including copyrighted publications, articles, legal precedents, and analytical reviews.

These rights were transferred to the plaintiff on the basis of a Deed of Assignment dated "31" July 2025 (hereinafter - "Deed of Assignment") from the Limited Liability Partnership "Dark Horse" (TOO "Temnaya Loshadka") (see Appendix No. ___ pages ___). According to this Deed, the owner of the "G+" trademark, officially registered in the State Register of Trademarks of the Republic of Kazakhstan RSE "National Institute of Intellectual Property" of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Registration number 104928, registration date 02.09.2025), is the plaintiff (see Appendix No. ___ pages ___). This registration secures the plaintiff's exclusive rights to use the mark in commercial activities on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The original Deed of Assignment, along with its proper certified translation, is submitted to the Court as Evidence (see Appendix No. ___ pages ___).

Thus, the plaintiff has full authority to present all claims set forth in this Statement of Claim, including claims for injunctions and other legal remedies. Despite timely notification and the defendants' awareness of the plaintiff's rights, they have continued and continue to use designations closely associated with the plaintiff, and also associate their products (including ChatGPT, Bing Chat, GitHub Copilot, Microsoft Copilot) with the plaintiff's content, which they refer to through identifiers that directly point to the plaintiff's source (e.g., utm_source=chatgpt.com).

Such actions by the defendants mislead consumers, creating a false impression of a connection, sponsorship, or endorsement of the plaintiff's Protected Publications with the defendants' products and services. Such actions undermine the plaintiff's business reputation, dilute his brand, and lead to a loss of control over his identity. All of the above actions by the defendants constitute acts of unfair competition and false designation of origin and endorsement under §43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).

Direct Connection to the U.S. Market, Misappropriation of Goodwill, and Unfair Competition
Based on the attached notarized screenshots from Google Analytics (see Appendix No. ___ pages ___), it is reliably established that the plaintiff's website, www.garantplus.kz, was systematically visited from the territory of the United States. This proves the existence of a stable connection between the plaintiff and consumers in the U.S. Moreover, the same screenshots confirm that the defendants' products, such as ChatGPT, provided answers to users in the U.S. that contained direct references to the plaintiff's content, linked to his website, and, most importantly, directly used the "G+" trademark in their answers.

Such actions by the defendants create a false impression among consumers that the plaintiff has given consent to the use of his trademark and content. Thanks to the plaintiff's many years of activity and the quality of his publications, the designation "Garant Plus" has acquired significant goodwill and secondary meaning among Russian-speaking consumers, including those in the U.S. The defendants, by using the plaintiff's "G+" trademark and referencing his content without permission, are unlawfully appropriating this reputation and creating a false association between their products and the plaintiff's established authority.

Furthermore, the ability of an AI model like ChatGPT to translate texts and provide them in English or other languages further exacerbates the violation. The AI can index copyrighted publications from the www.garantplus.kz website, translate them, and provide them to users as an answer, while unlawfully using the "G+" trademark as the source of information. This expands the scale of the violation, misleading a wider audience of consumers and thereby diluting the plaintiff's brand and causing him irreparable harm.

This lawsuit is, first and foremost, based on the provisions of §43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), which regulates unfair competition and false designation of origin, as well as on the corresponding norms of Common Law. The plaintiff insists that the defendants' systematic actions of unauthorized use, adaptation, and reproduction of his Protected Publications, which are the result of his business activities and intellectual work, and their subsequent output through artificial intelligence products (including, but not limited to, ChatGPT, Bing Chat, GitHub Copilot, Microsoft Copilot), create a false designation of origin and are, in fact, "passing off" the plaintiff's content. This leads to a mistaken belief among consumers and users that the defendants' content either originates from the plaintiff or is approved, licensed, or otherwise associated with him, thereby directly undermining his business reputation, competitiveness, and business model. The plaintiff specifically emphasizes that in this statement of claim he is not asserting claims exclusively for copyright infringement, instead focusing on the market consequences, acts of unfair competition, and misleading consumers regarding the true source and endorsement of the content.

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff asks the Court, from the date of receipt of this statement of claim, to consider the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as the memorandum in support of the motion (see Appendix).

Thus, the actions of the defendants, OpenAI Limited Partnership and Microsoft Corporation, have a direct and substantial effect on commerce in the United States, as a result of which they are obligated to bear responsibility in accordance with §43(a) of the Lanham Act. According to the evidence presented, including the screenshot (see Appendix), my business is accessible to American consumers, and its content is actively visited from the territory of the U.S. This creates a basis for jurisdiction and confirms the existence of commercial relations. At the same time, the unlawful use of the plaintiff's content without proper attribution creates the potential for misleading consumers. American users interacting with the defendants' products may be misled into believing that the content taken from my website is part of the defendants' intellectual property. Such a false designation of origin directly undermines my business, creates unfair competition, and causes irreparable harm to my reputation, as my content is no longer perceived as unique and original but is dissolved into the general mass of data used in the defendants' products.

Undermining the Plaintiff's Business: Irreparable Harm
The plaintiff asserts that the defendants' ongoing actions cause him irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by money. This harm is continuous because the defendants' products have not only used but continue to use the plaintiff's content. Since the defendants' products have absorbed all of the plaintiff's content, they present it to users as their own. In this regard, due to the ongoing violations, it is impossible to determine the total damage. At the same time, most of the defendants' products have been integrated by embedding ChatGPT's memory into many products, such as Microsoft 365 Copilot, Microsoft Copilot (formerly Bing Chat), and Azure OpenAI Service.

Thus, the damage is incalculable, as the defendants will continue the violations if there is no complete suspension of the use of the plaintiff's content, which means it is necessary to obtain a judicial injunction to use the plaintiff's content.

Threat to Business Reputation
The plaintiff insists that the defendants' actions cause serious damage to his business reputation. The use of content without proper attribution:

• Conceals the plaintiff's brand: The author, attorney Samat Serikovich Sagidanov, is not indicated with his contact information. This means that potential clients and partners who might have found him through the content now cannot, because my work has been "appropriated" by OpenAI and Microsoft.
• Creates an impression of irrelevance: If an AI model uses the plaintiff's content as part of its "knowledge" without a link, this can give consumers the feeling that his materials are just "general" data, and not the result of unique professional activity.

Thus, the defendants not only use but will continue to use the content, which undermines trust in the plaintiff's brand. This makes it impossible to earn profit from his content by attracting clients and, due to the defendants' market monopolization, significantly reduces his market and increases competition. The plaintiff is, therefore, focused on proving that his business is at risk of harm, which is a strong argument for obtaining a judicial injunction—the main goal to prevent violations by the defendants.

The plaintiff also draws the Court's attention to the restriction of his business activity by the defendants, which is a direct violation of the plaintiff's right to freedom of enterprise and the protection of his content, through which he conducts his business and derives profit.

Basis of the Lawsuit in the Context of Modern Precedents
The plaintiff's lawsuit is consistent with the current dynamics of AI litigation but differs in its legal nature. Unlike the case of The New York Times v. OpenAI and Microsoft, which focuses on copyright infringement (Section 106), this lawsuit is based on unfair competition and false designation of origin under §43(a) of the Lanham Act. The plaintiff is fighting against the misappropriation of his business reputation and brand.

Thus, this lawsuit does not duplicate but complements current legal practice, expanding the boundaries of intellectual property protection in the age of artificial intelligence.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's lawsuit takes into account the limitations established by the Supreme Court in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003). While the Dastar case limited the application of §43(a) of the Lanham Act to challenging the origin of ideas or intangible content, the plaintiff's lawsuit does not fall under this prohibition. The plaintiff does not claim that the defendants' AI models must recognize the origin of every fragment of content. Instead, the plaintiff insists that the unauthorized use of his registered trademark "G+" as a source of information, as well as the creation of a false association between the plaintiff's brand and the defendants' products, is a direct act of unfair competition against him. The lawsuit is, therefore, aimed at protecting identity and brand, which falls directly under the jurisdiction of the Lanham Act.

Defendant Microsoft Corporation, in addition to its software and cloud-based AI services, is a leading manufacturer and seller of tangible physical goods in interstate commerce, including the Surface Laptop and Surface Pro devices (collectively referred to as "Surface Devices"), which are designed, manufactured, and distributed as physical hardware products equipped with advanced AI capabilities. These Surface Devices, such as the 2025 models of the Surface Laptop (available in 13-inch, 13.8-inch, and 15-inch configurations) and the 11th generation Surface Pro, include built-in neuro-processing units (NPUs), providing performance of 45 trillion operations per second (TOPS) to accelerate on-device AI work, and come with pre-installed Microsoft Copilot—a derivative AI solution running on OpenAI models, including GPT-5 and o1, which integrate and use the plaintiff's copyrighted publications embedded in the core large language models.

In addition, the physical devices are equipped with a dedicated Copilot key for instant access to AI features, such as "Click to Do" for image and text processing, "Recall" for searching on-device history, and seamless integration with Microsoft 365 Copilot to perform productivity tasks in applications like Word and PowerPoint. All these features depend on the derivative outputs obtained from the plaintiff's content, which is inseparably embedded in the AI models that power these features.

By manufacturing and selling these Surface Devices as finished physical products that embody and distribute infringing AI technology—without attributing the authorship of the underlying content belonging to the plaintiff—the defendants are engaging in false designation of origin under §43(a) of the Lanham Act, as the devices themselves are "goods in commerce" where the plaintiff's works are passed off as works originating from Microsoft/OpenAI, which creates consumer confusion and unfair competition in the U.S. market.

This direct connection between the physical hardware and the infringing content embedded within it distinguishes this case from Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox, 539 U.S. 23 (2003), since the Surface Devices are tangible manufactured goods that include and exploit the plaintiff's intellectual property in a way that misleads users about its source and endorsement. Thus, Dastar limits §43(a) to the protection of the origin of physical goods, whereas the plaintiff's publications (intangible content) are embedded in Surface—a physical good sold by Microsoft.

This makes the current lawsuit analogous to POM Wonderful and Phoenix Entertainment, where §43(a) was applied to physical goods carrying content. Furthermore, the plaintiff focuses on the "G+" trademark and reputation, not just the authorship of the publications, which is consistent with Andersen and Bayer, where courts protected brands and style, not just ideas. The specified UTM tags and links to "G+" create confusion about endorsement (false endorsement), which goes beyond Dastar, as it is not just "ideas" but the commercial use of your brand.

Commercial Purpose of the Plaintiff and Defendants, Conflict of Interests in Business Activities, and Grounds for Applying Unfair Competition Law (Lanham Act)
1.1. The defendants (Microsoft and OpenAI) provide digital products that by their nature and form fall under the protection of unfair competition law (Lanham Act), despite their intangible nature.

• Microsoft sells products like Microsoft 365, Azure, GitHub Copilot, provided through subscriptions and licenses. The user pays for access, which gives the product obvious commercial value. U.S. courts recognize that such digital products can be considered "goods" or "services" under the Lanham Act in cases of unlawful brand use or misleading users.
• OpenAI provides ChatGPT Plus and DALL·E API services for a paid subscription. Even if the final digital content (text or image) is available to the user for free to read, the access to the platform and functionality itself is paid and, therefore, constitutes a commercial product. This allows OpenAI to use protection not only under copyright but also under unfair competition rules.

Thus, in practice, the defendants operate digital products that are recognized by courts as "goods" or "services," even without a physical form, if they:

1.      Are provided on a paid basis (subscription, license);

2.      Perform a marketing and commercial function;

3.      Use trademarks and branding to make a profit.

1.2. According to the conclusion of the technical expertise (see Appendix), ChatGPT operates using the plaintiff's publications on an ongoing basis. It is established that these publications were included in ChatGPT's training materials, as a result of which they are inseparably linked to the functioning and results of this platform. It follows from letters from the plaintiff's clients (see Appendix) that the use of ChatGPT, including the content of the plaintiff's publications, influenced the clients' decisions when choosing legal representation and entering into a legal assistance agreement with the plaintiff. Thus, taking into account the valuation expertise (see Appendix), a portion of the plaintiff's profits has shifted or may shift to the defendants by providing similar content without the plaintiff's consent.

1.3. In a mirror comparison, it is obvious: if the plaintiff, on his part, used the functionality, content, or branding of Microsoft/OpenAI to make a profit without permission, this would inevitably be qualified as an act of unfair competition. Consequently, an analogous interpretation of the law should be applied to the defendants' actions with respect to the plaintiff. Because applying different standards in similar situations would undermine the principle of equality of parties and impartiality of the court.

1.4. U.S. case law confirms that digital products and intangible assets can fall under the Lanham Act:

• Adobe Systems Inc. v. Christenson (809 F.3d 1071, 9th Cir. 2015) - the court recognized that digital software can be considered a good in the context of unfair competition.
• Microsoft Corp. v. Software Wholesale Club, Inc. (129 F. Supp. 2d 995, S.D. Tex. 2000) - confirmed that distributing unlicensed software violates the Lanham Act.
• St Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute v. Sanderson (573 F.3d 1186, 11th Cir. 2009) - the court recognized that even information and materials used in a commercial context can be the subject of protection from unfair competition.
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. (2000 WL 525390, C.D. Cal. 2000) - the court indicated that online content used for profit can fall under the rules of the Lanham Act.

These precedents confirm: intangible assets, including digital services, software, and even content, when used commercially, are considered by U.S. courts as goods or services, which makes unfair competition law applicable.

2.1. Both parties - the plaintiff and the defendants - conduct business activities with the goal of providing their products and services for a fee.

2.1.1. The defendants monetize their digital products through paid offerings:

• Microsoft (subscriptions and licenses):

o    Microsoft 365 Personal - $99.99 per year or $9.99 per month; includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote, 1 TB OneDrive, and Copilot (source: Microsoft).

o    Microsoft 365 Family - $129.99 per year or $12.99 per month; all Personal features with the ability to share with 5 users (source: Microsoft).

o    Microsoft 365 Business Plans - Basic $6.00/user/month, Standard $12.50/user/month, Premium $22.00/user/month (source: Microsoft).

o    Microsoft 365 Copilot - $30/user/month (source: The Verge).

• OpenAI (subscriptions and API):

o    ChatGPT Plus - $20/month; includes GPT-4, faster responses, priority access to features (source: OpenAI).

o    ChatGPT Team - $30/user/month (or $25/user/month with annual subscription) (source: cloudeagle.ai).

o    OpenAI API - $10 for 1 million input tokens and $40 for 1 million output tokens (source: OpenAI).

Thus, both defendants offer paid subscriptions and licenses, which confirms the commercial value of their digital products. The commercial nature of the activity allows them to protect their products under unfair competition rules, as these products have obvious market value.

2.2. The plaintiff also conducts business activities, providing legal assistance to the public for a fee after entering into an agreement with clients. Clients find the plaintiff online, including through his published articles, which perform a marketing function (see Appendix). According to the technical expertise (see Appendix), these publications were included in ChatGPT's training materials and have become inseparably linked to its functioning and results. As a result, the defendants are effectively profiting by using the plaintiff's publications as part of their own digital product. Such actions bear the hallmarks of unfair competition, since, as established by the valuation expertise (see Appendix), the plaintiff is suffering or may suffer harm: his market position is weakened, and a portion of the profit is redistributed in favor of the defendants, who are using his publications without consent. At the same time, the defendants' activity has market power relative to the plaintiff, as they accumulate commercial benefit from using someone else's content on a global market scale.

2.3. The causal link between the defendants' actions and the violation of the plaintiff's rights is documented: with screenshots, technical expertise, and valuation expertise (see Appendix). Thus, the defendants' actions are subject to legal qualification precisely as an act of unfair competition within the meaning of the Lanham Act provisions, and not as other violations, since the economic essence of their actions is the use of the plaintiff's publications for profit on a commercial basis, while simultaneously posing a threat to the plaintiff's business activities, and also misleading consumers about the source and nature of the content.

2.4. U.S. case law confirms the arguments presented above.

• Adobe Systems Inc. v. Christenson (809 F.3d 1071, 9th Cir. 2015) - the court recognized that digital software is a "good" for the purposes of the Lanham Act, even if it has no physical form. This confirms that Microsoft and OpenAI products (subscriptions, SaaS, API) are subject to protection and regulation under unfair competition.
• Microsoft Corp. v. Software Wholesale Club, Inc. (129 F. Supp. 2d 995, S.D. Tex. 2000) - the court indicated that the distribution of unlicensed digital products violates the Lanham Act. Applicable to justifying that Microsoft/OpenAI's digital licenses and subscriptions are goods/services with commercial value.
• St Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute v. Sanderson (573 F.3d 1186, 11th Cir. 2009) - the court recognized that even publications and internet materials, if they are used to attract clients and make a profit, can fall under protection from unfair competition. This confirms that the plaintiff's articles perform a marketing function and have commercial value.
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. (2000 WL 525390, C.D. Cal. 2000) - the court established that using someone else's online content for commercial purposes can be considered unfair competition. Applicable to the plaintiff's situation, whose publications were included in ChatGPT's materials and became a source of profit for the defendants.
• Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (572 U.S. 118, 2014) - the Supreme Court confirmed that a plaintiff has the right to file a lawsuit under the Lanham Act if they have suffered or may suffer commercial harm from a competitor's actions. ⚖️ This confirms the plaintiff's procedural right to sue.

 
3.1. Plaintiff's Access to Justice
The plaintiff has the same rights to appeal to the court and protect his interests as the defendants, as well as any entrepreneurs in the United States. These rights are based on fundamental principles:

• everyone has the right to file a lawsuit or defend themselves in court (standing + due process);
• the state cannot create unreasonable barriers (excessive fees, discrimination, refusal to hear a case);
• the judicial system is obligated to ensure a fair, equal, and impartial consideration of the dispute;
• the violation of access to justice is a violation of the U.S. Constitution (primarily the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).

3.2. Constitutional Foundations of Access to Justice in the U.S.
1.      Article III of the U.S. Constitution

o    establishes the judicial power and secures the right of citizens to appeal to federal courts on matters relating to "cases" and "controversies" (real cases and disputes);

o    without standing (right to sue), access to court is impossible.

2.      First Amendment

o    secures the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;

o    the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this as including the right to appeal to a court.

3.      Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process Clauses)

o    the Fifth is applicable to the federal level, the Fourteenth—to the states;

o    both guarantee due process of law, including:

• the right to a fair trial,
• the right to be heard,
• the right to have a case heard by an independent and impartial court.

4.      Sixth Amendment (in criminal cases)

o    guarantees the right to a public trial, assistance of counsel, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, and cross-examination;

o    although it directly relates to criminal cases, the Supreme Court connects it with the general principle of a "fair trial."

5.      Seventh Amendment

o    secures the right to a jury trial in civil cases in federal courts (when the amount in dispute exceeds $20);

o    this is also an element of constitutional access to justice.

3.3. Judicial Precedents on Access to Justice
·         Marbury v. Madison (1803) - the Supreme Court established the principle: "for every right, there must be a judicial remedy" (where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy).

• Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) - the court ruled that access to court cannot be limited by excessive court fees, as this violates due process.
• Bounds v. Smith (1977) - the Supreme Court required the state to provide inmates with legal materials or assistance to exercise their right to appeal to a court.
• Tennessee v. Lane (2004) - the court confirmed that the right to access a court is fundamental and is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, including ensuring equal access for individuals with disabilities.

3.4. Conclusion
Consequently, denying the plaintiff the protection of his rights in this case by refusing to accept the lawsuit based on the defendants' arguments would mean violating his constitutional right to access to justice and depriving him of the opportunity for a fair trial, which contradicts both the U.S. Constitution and established Supreme Court case law.

The plaintiff draws the Court's attention to the fact that, in accordance with clause 2 of Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a lawsuit against a legal entity is filed at the location of that legal entity according to its constituent documents and (or) the address entered in the National Register of Business Identification Numbers. Thus, the courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan do not have jurisdiction to hear this lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, which are registered and operate in the territory of the United States of America. In view of this, the only way to ensure the protection of the plaintiff's rights is to file this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. A refusal to accept the lawsuit or a dismissal of the case would effectively deprive the plaintiff of the right to judicial protection (denial of justice), which contradicts the fundamental principles of access to justice and a fair trial.

4.1. The Principle of Equal Protection of the Law
In accordance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court case law, all persons and entrepreneurs have equal rights to judicial protection, regardless of their race, religion, official position, or property status.

• The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) explicitly prohibits any U.S. government body from "denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
• The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that the principle of equal protection extends to all categories of persons, including private entrepreneurs and small businesses, regardless of the size of their operations or the number of clients.

This principle is confirmed by legal precedent:

• Yick Wo v. Hopkins (118 U.S. 356, 1886) - the Supreme Court recognized that even small business entrepreneurs (Chinese immigrant laundries) have an equal right to protection from discrimination, despite the "insignificant" scale of their activities.
• Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202, 1982) - the Court indicated that even vulnerable groups (undocumented immigrant children) have the right to equal protection of the law, despite their limited number and status.
• Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (383 U.S. 663, 1966) - the Court recognized that financial status (inability to pay a tax to participate in elections) cannot limit access to fundamental rights.
• Griffin v. Illinois (351 U.S. 12, 1956) - the Court ruled that poverty is not a basis for denying access to justice; the state is obligated to remove barriers that prevent access to court.

Thus, any arguments by the defendants about the "insignificance" of the dispute or the "small number of visitors" to the plaintiff's website cannot serve as a basis for denying the lawsuit. Even if the plaintiff's audience is smaller compared to the defendants' dominant position in the market, his rights to a fair trial and protection from unfair competition are equal and subject to protection on par with the rights of multinational corporations.

Moreover, limiting the plaintiff's access to justice on the grounds of a smaller market share would contradict the fundamental principle of equal protection of the law and would create a precedent for discrimination based on financial status, which is unacceptable under the U.S. constitutional system.

5. Final Legal Justification
5.1. Based on the above, the potential arguments of the defendants that the decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (539 U.S. 23, 2003) limits the application of the Lanham Act exclusively to physical goods and does not extend to digital or AI-used content are untenable.

The case law cited above (Adobe Systems v. Christenson; Microsoft v. Software Wholesale Club; Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com) directly confirms that digital products, SaaS services, and even online content can be qualified as "goods" or "services" within the meaning of the Lanham Act if they are used in commercial transactions and generate profit. Thus, the activities of Microsoft and OpenAI, which monetize access to their digital products, are unquestionably subject to the scope of the Lanham Act.

5.2. The plaintiff also draws the Court's attention to the fact that the defendants' potential arguments about the "small number of visits" to the plaintiff's website (6002 visits from the U.S.), allegedly insufficient to prove a "substantial effect on U.S. commerce," are unfounded, because:

• The Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)) does not require a "massive" scale of violation: it is sufficient to establish commercial harm or the risk of it for the plaintiff as a result of a competitor's actions (Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 2014);
• The jurisdictional standard of "effect on commerce" is interpreted broadly in the practice of U.S. courts: even limited transactions or a small number of consumers can be considered sufficient if they have a real commercial impact (see Christian Science Bd. of Directors v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209, 215 (4th Cir. 2001));
• The Equal Protection precedents (Yick Wo v. Hopkins; Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections; Griffin v. Illinois) exclude the possibility of discriminating against the plaintiff based on the scale of his business or the number of clients—a small business has an equal right to protection under the Lanham Act;
• In this case, a direct causal link has been established: the plaintiff's publications are included in ChatGPT's training materials (see Appendix), which is confirmed by technical expertise, as well as by letters from clients that influenced their choice of legal services. Consequently, the fact of even limited traffic does not negate the reality of commercial harm.

Conclusion: The defendants' arguments about the inapplicability of the Lanham Act due to Dastar and the insufficiency of visits to the plaintiff's website should be rejected as legally and factually unfounded.

The Plaintiff's Right to Free Speech and Public Discussion
The plaintiff asserts that his actions, taken pre-litigation to inform the public, investors, competitors, and regulators about the defendants' unlawful conduct, are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The public discussion of the ethical and legal aspects of using AI models is a matter of exceptional public importance that goes beyond protecting only the plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff's actions were consistent and reflect his good-faith belief that the use of content in ChatGPT poses a systemic risk to the rights of entrepreneurs whose business is based on authorship, be they lawyers, journalists, musicians, etc.

Moreover, the plaintiff sincerely believes that his efforts can help protect the rights of entrepreneurs worldwide. By sending his letters, the plaintiff acted solely to draw attention to a systemic problem and to warn other potentially affected parties. The plaintiff also believed that he could independently stop these violations pre-litigation by openly stating them, and not to exert improper pressure or interfere with the defendants' business relations. All of the plaintiff's statements were made in good faith and were based on the evidence attached to this lawsuit, and, as is particularly emphasized, on the Declaration that is attached in support of this statement of claim (see Appendix). The very sequence of actions—from sending the initial claim to filing the lawsuit—serves as confirmation of his intentions and belief in a fair judicial decision, as well as in the fact that the plaintiff is capable of protecting his rights as an entrepreneur both independently and with the help of public involvement.

Thus, any demands by the defendants aimed at discrediting the plaintiff's actions should be considered a further manifestation of their bad faith and an attempt to exert unlawful pressure on the plaintiff and the judicial process.

Strategic Significance of the Lawsuit and Public Interest
The plaintiff asserts that the scale and content of this lawsuit will be perceived as a significant precedent for the judicial protection of the rights of content creators and entrepreneurs in the new era of artificial intelligence. This lawsuit is a test of the U.S. judicial system's ability to apply existing law, in particular §43(a) of the Lanham Act, to complex technological realities, as well as to large corporations with significant resources against an individual entrepreneur.

The plaintiff reminds the Court that, according to the principles of American justice, every citizen has the right to a fair hearing, and the judiciary is obligated to provide protection, regardless of the size, financial capacity, or potential public influence of the defendants. The defendants provide their products to a wide and unrestricted audience, without specifying whose content to index or whose intellectual property to use. Consequently, the incident with the plaintiff, in his opinion, is not an isolated case but a revealing example of a systemic problem that could affect many U.S. citizens.

If the Court refuses to consider the case on its merits, this could be interpreted as a court's refusal to protect bona fide entrepreneurs from technological piracy, which will create a "chilling effect" on other authors and undermine trust in the justice system itself. Given the public interest and the potential scale of harm to other citizens, the plaintiff also petitions for the involvement of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Important Note: To Protect the Plaintiff's Reputation and Explain His Good Faith Position in Pre-Litigation Dispute Resolution
With the aim of good-faith pre-litigation dispute resolution and minimizing potential risks for both parties, the plaintiff repeatedly approached the defendants with proposals that, as part of dialogue attempts, included changing amounts of monetary compensation (see Appendix No., pages). At the same time, the amount of a possible pre-litigation settlement consistently increased, which was a direct consequence and a forced measure in response to the complete lack of any reaction from the defendants to resolve the dispute pre-litigation. The plaintiff specifically draws the Court's attention to the fact that all these actions were taken with the sole hope of initiating a dialogue and achieving an out-of-court resolution of the conflict. However, the defendants demonstratively failed to make contact for several months and ignored all of the plaintiff's appeals. This complete lack of any reaction from the defendants, despite the obviousness and escalation of the conflict, prevented a further peaceful settlement. This forced the plaintiff not only to indicate the escalation of potential future demands but also to designate them as the "cost of peace" in case the defendants still offered the possibility of resolving the dispute (see Appendix No., pages).

The plaintiff emphasizes that this lack of response from the defendants is an act of bad business practice and directly indicates their deliberate unwillingness to resolve the dispute. At the same time, the lack of acceptance and any negotiation process on the part of the defendants during the pre-litigation correspondence deprives them of the right to later groundlessly claim pressure or blackmail on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, for his part, demonstrated exceptional openness and good faith, having adjusted his position: after sending the defendants demands for monetary compensation pre-litigation, the plaintiff ultimately sent them a sample of this lawsuit, which fundamentally excludes monetary claims and is aimed exclusively at protecting against unfair competition and restoring fair conditions. This directly indicates the plaintiff's subjective but pure and impartial attitude to the case, since he is not the violator but the party demanding the protection of good-faith competition.

Thus, the possibility of pre-litigation dispute resolution was completely exhausted not through the fault of the plaintiff, but solely due to the defendants' deliberate inaction. The lack of open dialogue and the forced publicity of the judicial process in the U.S. now creates a precedent and opens up the possibility for other entrepreneurs to use the facts and his work identified by the plaintiff as a basis for filing similar lawsuits. In this regard, the plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to dismiss any claims by the defendants of "blackmail" and "abuse of process," since there was no acceptance or any constructive negotiations between the parties in the pre-litigation correspondence. The increase in the "cost of peace" was a forced measure designed to prompt the defendants to a dialogue, and was not an attempt at unlawful enrichment.

In addition, the plaintiff believes that when considering this case, the Court should proceed from whose rights were affected according to the subject of the statement of claim. The subject of this claim is to establish the fact of unfair competition on the part of the defendants and to stop it. Any actions by the defendants aimed at discrediting the plaintiff will actually be a way of pressuring the plaintiff with a subsequent "abuse of the judicial process" by shifting the blame. In other words, it is necessary to proceed from whose rights are violated according to these claims, and which actions of the parties are aimed at pressure, as well as from the true purpose of the statement of claim—to establish the fact of unfair competition, and not to collect compensation.

In Lieu of a Conclusion
The defendants' actions are not a random error or a technical malfunction, but a conscious and strategic attempt to blur the line between originality and imitation. The defendants profit from someone else's intellectual labor, using it to train their models and appropriating the goodwill created by the plaintiff. The violations committed by the defendants did not go unnoticed and received a wide public response. A media campaign was conducted in more than 100 media outlets, including outside the Republic of Kazakhstan, detailing the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's content. This fact is additional confirmation of the significant reputational harm caused to the "Garant Plus" brand and the undermining of customer trust, which fully corresponds to the claims under §43(a) of the Lanham Act. In addition, this case has precedential significance, as there is a risk of similar violations against other rights holders. Satisfying this lawsuit will serve as an important signal to the defendants and the market as a whole about the need to respect copyrights and prevent further unfair use of intellectual property, which, in turn, can lead to multiple similar lawsuits.

The plaintiff demands not compensation but justice—the restoration of fair and good-faith competition and the protection of the rights of entrepreneurial authors in the new technological reality. In the current circumstances, a judicial injunction is the only way to stop the strategic appropriation of identity and content through AI and the misleading of users worldwide regarding the entrepreneurial initiative. Such behavior by the defendants cannot and should not go unpunished, as it creates a dangerous precedent and undermines trust in the very process of content creation. Moreover, unfair competition is being placed above the plaintiff's good-faith business activities.

The plaintiff is aware that when considering the motion for injunctive relief, the Court may face the need to weigh the interests of the parties: on the one hand, ensuring good-faith competition, and on the other, the potential catastrophic risks for the defendants, including bankruptcy, in the event of an immediate suspension of their activities. However, the plaintiff emphasizes that his claims are not aimed at a complete cessation or undermining of the defendants' business, in particular, their ChatGPT product. The purpose of the lawsuit is exclusively to stop unfair competition, expressed in the use, reproduction, and adaptation of the plaintiff's specific copyrighted publications posted on the www.garantplus.kz website. The plaintiff acts within the framework of good-faith entrepreneurship and reason. This is confirmed by the fact that when filing a motion for contempt of court in case of non-compliance with the TRO order, the plaintiff asks to set a minimal daily fine of only $1 (see Appendix). The purpose of this symbolic fine is not to exert financial pressure or suspend the defendants' activities, but to demonstrate to the Court their potential disrespect for a judicial decision and their unwillingness to comply with the order voluntarily. Such an approach indicates that the plaintiff is not seeking a compulsory ban but is counting on reasonable actions by the defendants themselves after the court grants the motion. This position directly indicates the good faith and ideological nature of the claims, based on the principles of fair business practice.

Thus, granting this motion does not pose any actual threat to the defendants, which will significantly facilitate the court's decision-making and the plaintiff's request for a minimal bond. At the same time, non-compliance with the court order will put the defendants themselves before a choice: either they voluntarily comply with the court's decision, or they publicly demonstrate their willingness to continue using content obtained as a result of violating the plaintiff's rights. Such a refusal to comply with a judicial act will create a precedent that will entail serious reputational risks. In the eyes of the public, the media, and the business community, this will look like a disregard for legal rights and a willingness to use "contaminated" data to train their products by unlawfully using intellectual labor. Such a fact can undermine trust in their activities and lead to much more serious consequences than any temporary inconveniences associated with complying with the order.

Therefore, the amount of the daily fine of only $1 is quite correct as security for the execution of the Court Order by the defendants, and allows the Court to consider the motion for security in the shortest possible time.

Final Opinion of the Plaintiff
The plaintiff emphasizes that his right to judicial protection is inalienable and does not depend on the visitor statistics or geographical location of visitors to the www.garantplus.kz website. The right to appeal to a court at the defendants' location is guaranteed by general principles of international law. The fact that the defendants, being American corporations, offer their products, including ChatGPT, worldwide, including in the Republic of Kazakhstan, and derive commercial profit, which is confirmed by the attached screenshots about the paid use of the service (see Appendix). This creates direct grounds for considering and granting this lawsuit.

The defendants' actions represent not just copyright infringement, but a global act of unfair competition. The unauthorized use of the plaintiff's content undermines his business reputation and leads to unfair profit globally. Thus, even in the absence of a significant number of visits from the U.S., the plaintiff has every right to protect his interests. The violation itself is global, and its consequences affect the plaintiff's commercial activities at an international level.

Given the above, the plaintiff believes that his lawsuit is subject to being granted, including on general grounds. The violation of the principles of unfair competition in Kazakhstan, as well as throughout the world, gives the plaintiff the right to appeal to a court at the defendants' location, based on the principles of international jurisdiction. The defendants are engaged in unfair competition, both in the U.S. (visitation) and worldwide (use of the plaintiff's content, including on the territory of Kazakhstan).

Anticipating and Countering Unfounded Arguments
To ensure a objective and comprehensive consideration of this case, the plaintiff anticipates and preemptively draws the Court's attention to the defendants' possible arguments, which are unfounded.

1. Regarding Arguments on "Fair Use" and the Dastar Precedent
The defendants may argue that the use of the plaintiff's content for training AI is "transformative fair use," and, citing the Dastar precedent, insist that the Lanham Act does not apply to "ideas." The plaintiff unequivocally objects to this, stating that the defendants' actions have nothing to do with fair use and are an act of unfair competition and false designation of origin, which is the subject of this lawsuit.

The plaintiff counters as follows:

• The use is not "transformative" but a direct substitution. Contrary to claims of "transformativeness," the defendants did not merely use the plaintiff's content as part of a general knowledge base. They created a commercial product—ChatGPT—that is capable of outputting content identical to the plaintiff's, thereby directly substituting it in the market. This is not a "transformation" but a misappropriation that makes the original source—the plaintiff's website and his publications—effectively unnecessary for end-users, which directly undermines his business model and competitiveness.
• The lawsuit is aimed at protecting the brand and reputation, not ideas. The plaintiff does not provide "ideas," but offers a specific legal service inextricably linked to his recognizable brand, reputation, and the trademark "G+". This lawsuit is based on the fact that the defendants' actions have created a false impression of the content's origin, which is a direct violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Users may be misled into believing that the content received through the defendants' products originates from or is endorsed by the plaintiff, which constitutes a false endorsement.
• Systematic, commercial use and bad faith. The defendants' actions are of an obvious commercial nature, as they use the plaintiff's content to train their paid products, deriving a direct benefit from it. Furthermore, the plaintiff's publications originally had a direct prohibition on commercial use (see Appendix No. ___ "All materials are protected by copyright. Copying, automated processing, or use for commercial purposes is prohibited without the copyright holder's consent. Attorney S. S. Sagidanov."). The fact that the defendants continued to use the plaintiff's content even after receiving official pre-litigation notice, which is confirmed by technical expertise and notarized screenshots, demonstrates their conscious bad faith, not "fair use."
• The use of the content is massive. As confirmed by technical expertise, AI models such as ChatGPT are trained on huge datasets, and if one publication was indexed, then, in essence, the entire www.garantplus.kz website and all 1159 original copyrighted publications were indexed. Thus, the defendants' violations are systematic and large-scale, which completely refutes any attempt to qualify their actions as "fair use."

2. Regarding the Argument of a "Weak U.S. Nexus"
The defendants may argue that 6,002 visits from the U.S. do not constitute a "substantial effect on commerce" and are insufficient to establish jurisdiction. The plaintiff strongly objects to this argument, raising the following counter-arguments.

First, according to precedent, even a single instance of a violation is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The very fact that the defendants, with a global presence, use the plaintiff's content for their commercial activities in the U.S. is more than a sufficient basis for jurisdiction. The total number of visitors to the plaintiff's website worldwide is 943,572 per year, which only underscores the value of this content and the global reach of the plaintiff's brand.

Second, the defendants' argument of a "weak nexus" misrepresents both the legal standard and the reality of their business model. Their actions are not isolated or localized; on the contrary, their business operates on a global scale. As the plaintiff has already proven, the defendants' large language models, including ChatGPT, are trained on vast datasets that absorb and use all available online content, including the plaintiff's 1159 articles. This act of intellectual property misappropriation is a core part of the defendants' business model.

The scale of the defendants' global activities directly affects commerce in the U.S. According to public statements by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, by September 2025, the user base of ChatGPT had grown to 800 million people worldwide. This explosive growth, driven in part by the use of content from authors like the plaintiff, directly creates a market disadvantage for the plaintiff both in the U.S. and in other countries. The defendants' business model, which relies on the unlawful appropriation of content from authors in different countries (including Kazakhstan) to attract and retain a huge American and international audience, has a direct and substantial effect on commerce in the U.S.

Third, the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act is established practice. U.S. courts have consistently confirmed that the Act protects foreign plaintiffs if the defendants' actions have a substantial effect on U.S. commerce. The key precedent, Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., confirms that jurisdiction can be established even if the infringing actions occur outside the U.S. The 6,002 visits from the U.S. are a tangible manifestation of this harm, but the true scale of the damage is reflected in the global nature of the defendants' violation and its impact on the market.

Thus, the defendants' arguments of a "weak U.S. nexus" are unfounded. The plaintiff's claim is not based on a single, isolated incident, but on a systematic, global violation that directly harms the plaintiff's business and distorts the U.S. market. The scale and nature of the defendants' business model, which directly depends on a huge array of "absorbed" data, including the plaintiff's work, provide more than sufficient grounds for jurisdiction.

3. Regarding Risks for Pro Se Litigants and "Emotional Tone"
The defendants may attempt to discredit the plaintiff by referring to his pro se status and the "emotional tone" of his documents.

To this, the plaintiff objects:

• The fact that the plaintiff is acting on his own simply emphasizes his conviction in the righteousness of his cause and the ideological nature of this lawsuit. The plaintiff's "emotionality," if any, reflects the exceptional significance of his work and the irreparable harm that has been done to him. Emotions are not a reason to deny a claim, but merely show how significant the defendants' unlawful actions are.

4. Regarding the Bond Issue
The defendants may argue that a judicial injunction would lead to billions in losses and demand a high bond.

To this, the plaintiff objects:

• The plaintiff is not demanding a complete shutdown of the defendants' products, but only asking to limit the use of his specific publications, which cannot lead to billions in losses. This conclusion is supported by the attached motion to the complaint, according to which the plaintiff asks the Court to impose a fine of $1 per day for violating the court order.
• In addition, the defendants' demand for a high bond for "damages incurred" is absurd, as this "damage" will only arise as a result of their own bad-faith actions. Demanding that the court protect their unfair competition is not only contrary to the law but also demonstrates disrespect for the principles of justice.

 
5. Linguistic and Valuation Expertise
The conducted linguistic analysis indicates a high probability of misleading consumers. Characteristic stylistic and terminological overlaps were found between the plaintiff's publications and ChatGPT's responses, which creates a false association between our legal services and the defendants' products (see Appendix).

According to the attached valuation expertise, the plaintiff will suffer significant harm if the defendants continue to use the plaintiff's publications, as they are using their dominant market position (see Appendix).

Rebuttal of "Fair Use" and Strengthening the Lanham Act Claim (Unfair Competition):
The linguistic expertise confirms that ChatGPT's responses are not a transformative use of the content, but include verbatim reproduction of text from the plaintiff's publications. Furthermore, these responses contain direct references to the author's name, Samat Sagidanov, and the copyright symbol (©), which creates a false impression of a partnership between the parties, thereby violating §43(a) of the Lanham Act (see Appendix).

According to the attached valuation expertise, the use of the plaintiff's content in OpenAI products directly competes with the plaintiff's services and threatens to take away potential clients in the future (see Appendix).

6. Transformative Use and Its Inapplicability to This Case
6.1. The defendants may argue that the use of the plaintiff's publications to train ChatGPT falls under the category of transformative use and, therefore, is permissible. This argument relies on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to which the use of a work can be considered transformative if it creates a new purpose, a new message, or a different character (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994)).

6.2. However, in this case, the reference to transformative use is inapplicable. According to the attached linguistic expertise, the expert established the following:

• The adapted ChatGPT texts do not create a new meaning or message, but are a derivative work of the plaintiff's publications, which is directly confirmed by user queries and the model's results.
• The paraphrasing of the plaintiff's publications retains the original semantics, structure, and performs the same marketing function as the original articles.
• The attached linguistic expertise confirms that this is not about transformation, but about the mass redistribution of original content in the form of an adapted retelling, i.e., plagiarism (see Appendix). Arguments that the text is adapted are also confirmed by literal user queries, where the user asks ChatGPT specifically to adapt the plaintiff's publications.
• Such use cannot be qualified as fair use, as it does not make an original contribution but merely reproduces the plaintiff's work in a changed linguistic form.

6.3. The distinction between training and outputs. Even if the model training process itself could be considered transformative for research purposes, the outputs of ChatGPT are a commercial reproduction of the content of the plaintiff's publications, aimed at making a profit. It performs the same function—attracting clients to legal services. Consequently, this is not a new message, but a commercial adaptation of the original.

6.4. Commercial nature. The use of the plaintiff's publications is not for educational or research purposes, but exclusively for commercialization through paid products: ChatGPT Plus, OpenAI API, Microsoft Copilot. Therefore, it does not fall under fair use, as it is a direct tool for monetization.

6.5. The absence of verbatim copying does not absolve the defendants of responsibility. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated:

• Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises (471 U.S. 539, 1985) - even partial reproduction of text for commercial purposes without a license violates the author's exclusive rights.
• Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (499 U.S. 340, 1991) - original selections and compilations of facts are protected by copyright.

Thus, the retelling or adaptation of the plaintiff's publications by the ChatGPT system is also a violation, since the original commercial function and market purpose of his texts are preserved.

6.6. Case law also confirms the impermissibility of such actions as an act of unfair competition.

• St Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute v. Sanderson (573 F.3d 1186, 11th Cir. 2009) - internet publications used to attract clients fall under the protection of the Lanham Act.
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. (2000 WL 525390, C.D. Cal. 2000) - using someone else's online content for commercial gain is recognized as unfair competition.

6.7. Verbatim reproductions and attribution in ChatGPT's responses.

6.7.1. The plaintiff's website materials "Garant Plus" clearly contain authorial designations and unique text markers that accompany all of the plaintiff's publications and serve as an identifier of ownership. In particular:

• on each publication page, it states: "Samat Serikovich Sagidanov – leading lawyer of Kazakhstan...", as well as the literal signature "© Attorney S. S. Sagidanov.";
• at the bottom of each publication, there is a notice: "All materials are protected by copyright. Copying, automated processing, or use for commercial purposes is prohibited without the copyright holder's consent. Attorney S. S. Sagidanov.";
• the contact page and all website publications contain repeating fragments with the last name and initials "Attorney S. S. Sagidanov" and the phone number +7 (702) 847 80 20.

6.7.2. The evidence base presented by the plaintiff (Appendix N) records responses from the ChatGPT model in which these protected phrases are reproduced verbatim. For example:

• when adapting the publication with the URL https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody, the ChatGPT response provides a literal copy of the signature "© Attorney S. S. Sagidanov." (see Appendix N, p. ..., response sample No. ...). At the same time, the source itself contained a unique link to the plaintiff's original publication: https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com, which confirms the direct use of the plaintiff's website content in ChatGPT's responses.

6.7.3. Legal significance. The fact of the verbatim reproduction of protected elements (including the © symbol, author attribution, and contact information) directly refutes the defendants' arguments about "transformative use." Even with the hypothetical assumption of a research nature of the training, the result (outputs), which are commercially available to users, contains verbatim fragments without the addition of new authorial content. Such reproduction is qualified as a violation of exclusive rights and excludes the application of the fair use doctrine. See: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (requirement of transformation), Harper & Row (commercial reproduction), Feist (protection of selections).

6.7.4. Practical documentation of facts. The verbatim coincidence of protected authorship markers (initials, © symbol, contact information, and punctuation-typographical features) excludes the possibility of accidental lexical similarity. This indicates a direct use of the plaintiff's original publications to perform an identical marketing function—attracting clients and demonstrating legal expertise. On these grounds, the plaintiff asks the court to take into account the appendix (side-by-side comparison table), which compares: Source (URL) → Original Fragment → ChatGPT Response → Type of Match (verbatim/near-verbatim).

#
Publication Title / URL
Exact Quote from the Website (verbatim) + Location
Quote from ChatGPT Response (from the lawsuit)
Page/Paragraph of Lawsuit
Match
1
https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"© Attorney S. S. Sagidanov." (page footer)
"© Attorney S. S. Sagidanov."
Appendix N, p. 3
verbatim (100%)
6.7.5. The defendants' argument about the transformativeness of the text in cases of verbatim reproduction is untenable. The evidence presented confirms that ChatGPT's responses contain verbatim fragments of the plaintiff's publications (including the © symbol and the author's name), which constitutes a direct violation of exclusive rights. This violation simultaneously falls under copyright law and the provisions of the Lanham Act, as it entails the unfair use of the plaintiff's designations for commercial purposes.

6.8. Conclusion. The defendants' reference to transformative use should be rejected as legally and factually unfounded. The evidence presented (including linguistic expertise and the side-by-side table) confirms that the ChatGPT system does not create new meanings and messages, but reproduces the plaintiff's protected publications either in verbatim form or as a derivative adaptation, while retaining the original marketing function. The actions of OpenAI and Microsoft consist of the mass copying and redistribution of the plaintiff's content to derive commercial benefit within the ChatGPT, API, and Microsoft Copilot products. Such use does not fall under the fair use doctrine, as it lacks transformation, is for commercial purposes, and violates the plaintiff's exclusive rights. Moreover, the systematic reproduction of authorial designations ("© Attorney S. S. Sagidanov.") and contact information enhances the qualification of the violation not only as plagiarism (copyright infringement) but also as an act of unfair competition and misleading consumers within the meaning of §43(a) of the Lanham Act.

7. Confusion of Origin and the Distinction Between Generation and Adaptation
7.1. The defendants may argue that the Lanham Act is not applicable to this case, as ChatGPT does not output responses as "Sagidanov's content" but provides them as a product of artificial intelligence. Thus, from their point of view, the user is allegedly not misled regarding the source of the text.

7.2. However, this argument is untenable. According to the attached linguistic expertise (see Appendix), the texts provided by ChatGPT:

• are not original generation, but are an adaptation of the plaintiff's publications (derivative works);
• retain the original semantics, argumentation, and marketing function of the plaintiff's publications;
• are used by users for the same purpose for which the plaintiff created his content—to obtain legal information and make a decision on choosing a lawyer, which leads to unfair competition for the plaintiff by causing him future harm (see Valuation Expertise in the Appendix). This is because the plaintiff is deprived of the opportunity to earn income from his business activities in the future due to ChatGPT providing answers directly.

7.3. Thus, the end user forms a false impression that the information received is unique, original, and independent of anyone's authorship, although in reality it comes from the plaintiff's publications and reproduces his work. This effect is "consumer confusion," although it manifests not through a literal indication of the author's name but through the substitution of the content source.

7.4. Case law confirms that confusion of origin can arise even in cases where a good or service is not directly marked with another's brand:

• St Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute v. Sanderson (573 F.3d 1186, 11th Cir. 2009) - the use of someone else's medical publications in a commercial context misled patients about the source of the information;
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. (2000 WL 525390, C.D. Cal. 2000) - even the use of links and reprocessed online content was recognized as creating a risk of confusion about the origin of the service.

7.5. Consequently, the actions of ChatGPT cannot be considered "pure generation"—they are a mass adaptation of the plaintiff's content without attribution. This directly falls under the prohibition of the Lanham Act, as the consumer receives misleading information about the content's origin: they perceive the plaintiff's reprocessed work as a ChatGPT product, which undermines the plaintiff's market position and creates an unfair competitive advantage for the defendants.

Moreover, as established in the case materials, the defendants, in an effort to conceal the use of the plaintiff's publications, deliberately introduced restrictions on providing data about the original sources, including the plaintiff's website and its URL. As a result, users receive ChatGPT responses without a link to the source of the information, although in fact the plaintiff's publications were included in the model's training materials and are inseparably linked to its functioning (see Appendix: technical expertise).

This practice allows the defendants to deliberately manipulate the perception of the information's origin, creating a false impression among users that the responses are the result of the artificial intelligence's independent "generation" rather than a reprocessing of the plaintiff's publications. Thus, the defendants have a real and confirmed ability to limit or completely exclude the mention of the source, which distorts consumers' perception and misleads them about the content's origin. In these circumstances, the defendants' arguments about the absence of "confusion" among users cannot be considered valid by the Court and should be rejected, since it is the defendants who, through their actions, created and maintain the conditions that prevent the identification of the original source.

In this regard, the plaintiff asks the Court to critically evaluate the defendants' statements that ChatGPT "generates" responses on its own and that users are not confused about the information's origin.

The Use of the "G+" Trademark in Text Adaptation
8.1. When adapting the plaintiff's publications, ChatGPT's responses use the "G+" trademark and the associated set of marketing materials that serve to individualize the plaintiff's business activities. This use is without the plaintiff's consent and contrary to his exclusive rights.

8.2. As established by the circumstances of the case, when adapting text from the plaintiff's website, ChatGPT can either directly use the trademark or exclude it due to OpenAI's implemented restrictions. This means that:

• in the case of using the "G+" trademark, users get the impression that the plaintiff has given consent to the use of his trademark and publications in the commercial product ChatGPT;
• in the case of the "G+" trademark's exclusion, confusion is created regarding the text's origin, as users are deprived of the ability to identify the real source (the plaintiff's website and brand).

8.3. In both cases, users form a false impression of the plaintiff's and defendants' relationship: either about consent to the use of the trademark or about the "depersonalization" of the content, which distorts the perception of its commercial nature and undermines the plaintiff's competitive advantages.

8.4. This practice is consistent with the initial interest confusion doctrine, where an unfair competitor uses another's mark or materials to attract attention and gain commercial advantage, even if the end consumer realizes the difference in sources. U.S. case law (see Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999); Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009)) confirms that even the hidden or indirect use of another's trademark in a digital environment creates an act of unfair competition.

8.5. Consequently, Microsoft and OpenAI's actions in adapting texts using the plaintiff's trademark violate both his exclusive rights and the provisions of the Lanham Act, as they create confusion regarding the source, implied consent, and commercial connection between the plaintiff and the defendants.

Unfair Competition and Harm to the Plaintiff
9.1. The defendants may argue that their actions have not harmed the plaintiff. However, this argument is directly refuted by the valuation expertise (see Appendix, valuation expertise; see also section 7.2), which reliably confirms that OpenAI and Microsoft, using the dominant position of their digital products, including ChatGPT, have integrated 1,159 of the plaintiff's publications from the www.garantplus.kz website into their artificial intelligence models without permission and have effectively appropriated their content, profiting for themselves (see Appendix: technical expertise). Moreover, given the growing influence of ChatGPT, the plaintiff's website will simply be pushed out of the market.

9.2. As a result, users receive ChatGPT responses based on the plaintiff's publications, but without specifying the plaintiff's source or his contact information for communication to allow him to profit from his work. This, in turn, deprives the plaintiff of direct internet traffic, which is the main tool for attracting clients and earning income from legal services. Thus, the defendants not only unlawfully use the plaintiff's work but also create conditions in which his competitive advantages in the market are significantly weakened.

9.3. The valuation expertise confirms that such actions create a real threat of significant future harm, including the complete loss of traffic and, as a result, the plaintiff's income. Such behavior constitutes unfair competition in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)), as the source of the commercial content is distorted and profit is redistributed in favor of the defendants.

9.4. Additionally, Google Analytics data, including the referral tag "?utm_source=chatgpt.com," confirms the fact of the defendants' impact on the plaintiff's website traffic. This data demonstrates the already begun negative impact on the plaintiff's business activities and reinforces the risk of irreparable harm to his business.

10. Analysis of the "Insignificant U.S. Traffic" Argument
10.1. Number of visits ≠ Absence of commercial effect

The defendants may argue that 6,002 visits from the U.S. (out of a total traffic of 943,572) are insignificant and do not create a "substantial effect" for the purposes of the Lanham Act. However, U.S. case law indicates that what is important is not the absolute number, but the very fact of commercial activity in the U.S. Even a small but proven flow of clients that affects the plaintiff's business activities is a sufficient basis for the application of §43(a) of the Lanham Act.

10.2. Number of visits ≠ Amount of plaintiff's income

Even if the 6,002 visits look insignificant in number, their value is measured not only by quantity but also by quality. As legal practice shows, one case in the U.S. can compensate for or even exceed the income from dozens of cases in other jurisdictions. Consequently, each visit from the U.S. has a disproportionately high commercial value.

10.3. "Substantial effect" is interpreted flexibly

In the case of Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952), the Supreme Court did indeed consider the "substantial effect" criterion for applying the Lanham Act outside the U.S. But in subsequent practice (McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F.3d 107, 1st Cir. 2005), the courts clarified: it is not required that the plaintiff have a huge market in the U.S.; it is sufficient to show a real and adverse effect on American commerce. Such an effect in this case is the de facto deprivation of the plaintiff's ability to compete in the U.S. market.

10.4. 6,002 visits = target audience in the U.S.

These visits are not random clicks but targeted inquiries for the plaintiff's legal publications, which perform a marketing function. Each visit has commercial value, as it can potentially be converted into a client. The loss of even a small portion of such clients causes direct harm to the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendants use ChatGPT on a global scale, and given the total traffic of the plaintiff's website (943,572 views per year), there is a direct threat of a complete loss of his traffic in the future. ChatGPT is not limited to the U.S., and, consequently, the risk of the plaintiff being pushed out is systemic.

10.5. Risks of monopolization

The defendants are operating on a global scale and are effectively pushing the plaintiff out of the American market segment, intercepting even the 6,002 contacts that could have been converted into clients. Disregarding such numbers creates the risk of monopolistic behavior that is contrary to the spirit of the Lanham Act. Interpreting "substantial effect" exclusively in favor of the defendants would effectively legalize the exclusion of small entrepreneurs from the protection of the law, which contradicts the Constitution and the principle of equality of parties.

10.6. Support in case law

• St Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute v. Sanderson, 573 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 2009) - internet publications that perform a marketing function are protected from unfair competition, regardless of the size of the audience.
• Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) - the Supreme Court recognized that it is sufficient for a lawsuit to show commercial harm, not the size of the market.
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., 2000 WL 525390 (C.D. Cal. 2000) - even limited use of another's online content can constitute unfair competition.

10.7. Plaintiff's access to justice and the principle of equality of parties

The plaintiff draws attention to the fact that limiting the right to judicial protection on the grounds of "insignificance" of American traffic violates the principle of equality of parties before the law. The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court practice (see Griffin v. Illinois, Yick Wo v. Hopkins) explicitly prohibit discrimination based on financial status or market share. Thus, a refusal to hear the lawsuit on this ground would mean depriving the plaintiff of access to justice.

Conclusion: Even if American traffic constitutes a smaller part of the total, the very fact of its existence and the proven harm (loss of clients, decrease in traffic, decrease in income) is sufficient for jurisdiction and the application of the Lanham Act. Therefore, the defendants' argument about "insignificance" has no legal significance and should be rejected.

Additional Grounds for a Lanham Act Violation Based on Misleading Statements
The plaintiff bases additional claims on § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), which establishes liability for using false or misleading designations, descriptions, or representations of fact likely to cause confusion or deceit regarding the origin, affiliation, sponsorship, endorsement, characteristics, quality, or geographic origin of goods or services.

According to the attached linguistic expertise (see Appendix), the text provided to users by ChatGPT in the violations is not generated by an artificial intelligence system but is an adapted version of the plaintiff's publications. At the same time, the semantics, structure, and marketing function of the source materials are preserved. The concept of "generation" of a response implies a process in which a computer program or artificial intelligence system autonomously creates a response to a given question or query, which is the main task in natural language processing (NLP). In other words, ChatGPT should have independently created the responses without relying on external publications. However, the evidence presented completely refutes this, demonstrating potential harm to the plaintiff.

Thus, ChatGPT does not create unique text in its responses to users but directly uses content related to the plaintiff. This is because when adapting the plaintiff's publications, ChatGPT preserves their main semantics, structure, and marketing function. By using this adapted version, the defendants, in essence, profit from the plaintiff's work, attracting traffic and monetizing content that is derived from the plaintiff's publications and the "G+" trademark.

The defendants are using the plaintiff's work, presenting it as their own product, which falls under the definition of false advertising and reverse passing off. This adaptation, rather than the creation of new content, serves as additional proof of the misleading statements. The defendants use the plaintiff's adapted content to create a false impression among users that they are receiving a unique and high-quality product. In reality, they are reselling the plaintiff's own work. This falls directly under the definition of false or misleading representations of fact, which is a violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

Furthermore, during the text adaptation, not only the text but also the copyright symbol (©) was used, with the author of the publication, Attorney S.S. Sagidanov, being indicated. At the same time, a prohibition notice is placed at the bottom of each publication: "All materials are protected by copyright. Copying, automated processing, or use for commercial purposes is prohibited without the copyright holder’s consent. Attorney S. S. Sagidanov."

In all identified instances of text adaptation by the defendants through ChatGPT, a linguistic expertise has, in turn, recognized the plaintiff's publications as original works that contain the plaintiff's point of view, ideas, and research. According to public statements by OpenAI, false information is provided that their models "generate" unique responses (see the official website: https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/). For example, according to the URL specified in the complaint (https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/), OpenAI directly states:

"GPT-4o ('o' for 'omni') is a step towards much more natural human-computer interaction. The model accepts any combination of text, audio, images, and video as input, and generates any combination of text, audio, and images as output. It can respond to audio queries in as little as 232 milliseconds, with an average response time of 320 milliseconds, which is comparable to the speed of human conversation. In performance, GPT-4o matches GPT-4Turbo in English text and code. At the same time, it handles texts in other languages significantly better, and also works much faster and is 50% cheaper via API. It's especially worth noting that GPT-4o far surpasses existing models in understanding visual and audio information."

The evidence presented by the plaintiff directly refutes this advertisement: instead of generation, the defendants are adapting other people's texts. This misleads users about the nature of the service and the quality of the product and gives the defendants a market advantage at the expense of the plaintiff's work.

Thus, we are talking not only about unfair competition but also about a systematic violation of the rules of fair trade, which causes harm to the plaintiff and the market as a whole. Case law confirms that in false advertising cases, courts proceed not from the scale of the plaintiff's business, but from the fact of the deception itself (see, for example, cases on false advertising and reverse passing off). The attached valuation expertise also indicates that the defendants' false statements made in the U.S. contribute to the formation of a global brand that affects international markets, including Kazakhstan. As a result, the plaintiff loses the ability to further develop and monetize his own content. The plaintiff's limited number of users in the U.S. (6,002 visits per year out of a total traffic of 943,572) is a sufficient basis for the application of § 43(a), since the Lanham Act protects not only large players but also small businesses from market deception (see Steele v. Bulova Watch Co.).

In combination, this confirms:

1.      The plaintiff has commerce in the U.S., albeit in limited volumes.

2.      The defendant disseminates a deliberately false statement ("generated text"), which constitutes false advertising.

3.      These statements affect the U.S. market, creating a risk of consumer confusion.

4.      The scale of the defendant's activities enhances the global effect—the plaintiff loses the ability to compete even in his national market.

5.      In this regard, the following measures are subject to application:

o    injunction (prohibition of using false statements),

o    damages (including future harm from market loss),

o    corrective advertising (the obligation to correct the misleading statements).

Thus, the plaintiff believes that the Court will find that the defendants' false statements that their system "generates" unique responses have in fact provided them with an unlawful competitive advantage. This has misled users and investors about the nature and quality of the service, which has allowed the defendants to build a global brand, attract millions of clients, and monetize content created by the plaintiff. At the same time, the plaintiff himself, according to the valuation expertise (see Appendix), will be deprived of future recognition and income from his publications, as his materials are presented as the result of an AI's work.

Thus, the defendants' competitive advantage is based not on honest innovation but on misleading statements, which falls directly under the prohibition of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act as a form of unfair competition. According to case law on reverse passing off, for example, in the case of Waldman Publishing Corp. v. Landoll, Inc. (43 F.3d 775, 2d Cir. 1994), the court recognized as a violation a situation where a publisher borrowed other people's texts, adapted them, and distributed them as their own. The analogy with the present dispute is obvious: the defendants use the plaintiff's texts, presenting them as the result of their system's "generation." It's important to emphasize that this is not a hidden violation but a massive advertising deception that misleads millions of users and gives them a false impression of the product's nature, which causes direct competitive harm to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the defendants' possible argument that the plaintiff is a foreign entity does not preclude the application of the Lanham Act: U.S. courts have consistently confirmed that § 43(a) protects not only U.S. residents but also any market participants if their activities have an effect on the territory of the U.S. (see, for example, Steele v. Bulova Watch Co.). Thus, the defendants' possible arguments about the small volume of traffic and the plaintiff's foreign status are not an obstacle to accepting and granting the lawsuit.

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (505 U.S. 763 (1992)) → The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that even intangible elements (trade dress, the product's appearance) are protected without the need to prove "secondary meaning." In this case, I believe this strengthens the argument about the preservation of the publications' marketing function.

Conclusion: Even a small volume of the plaintiff's commerce in the U.S. is sufficient for jurisdiction. The valuation expertise, which confirms the defendant's global influence, indicates that the dispute is not "private" or "insignificant," but represents a fundamental case of unfair competition that requires protection under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

Taken together, the evidence presented confirms that the defendants gained an unlawful competitive advantage through false statements about "text generation." This deception misleads users and investors, undermines the market, and deprives the plaintiff of the opportunity for fair competition. It is precisely such situations that § 43(a) of the Lanham Act is intended to prevent—when a business is built not on innovation but on a systematic distortion of the product's nature. In light of the above, the plaintiff sees broader grounds for granting the claims set forth in this complaint.

Clarified Additional Grounds for a Lanham Act Violation Based on Misleading Statements
The plaintiff moves for the consideration of the following additional grounds for establishing a violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), which directly arise from the evidence presented to the court.

1. Misleading Statements About the Nature of the Product: "Generation" vs. "Adaptation"
The defendant, OpenAI, in its public marketing materials (including the official website openai.com), positions its product ChatGPT as a system that "generates" texts, audio, and images. This statement is false or highly misleading for the average consumer.

• For a typical user, the verb "generates" means the creation of completely new, original content as a result of a creative or intellectual process.
• The reality, confirmed by the linguistic expertise, shows otherwise: the outputs of ChatGPT are an adaptation, reprocessing, and derivative use of the plaintiff's copyrighted publications, while retaining their semantic core, structure, and unique authorial markers (including the copyright symbol © and the attribution "Attorney S. S. Sagidanov.").

Thus, the defendant misleads consumers about the fundamental nature and quality of its product, which is a direct violation of the Lanham Act, which prohibits false designations and descriptions of facts.

2. Rebuttal of the Argument of "Puffery" or "Exaggeration"
The defendant will likely attempt to classify its statements about "generation" as permissible "puffery"—that is, vague marketing exaggerations. This argument is untenable for the following reasons:

• The statement about "generation" is presented not as a subjective opinion ("the best") but as an objective description of the key function and principle of the product's operation.
• This is a verifiable statement of fact. The evidence presented by the plaintiff (notarized screenshots, linguistic and technical expertise) empirically refutes this statement, demonstrating the mechanism of adaptation, not generation.
• Courts consistently refuse to recognize statements as puffery when they are specific, verifiable, and false.

3. Direct Causal Link Between False Statements and Harm
The defendant's false marketing statements are not an abstract violation; they directly cause harm to the plaintiff's business and distort the conditions of competition.

• Creation of a false competitive advantage: By attracting millions of users and investors with the claim of a revolutionary "generation" of unique content, the defendant gained an unlawful market advantage based on deception.
• Undermining the value of the original: If a user believes that the text was "generated" by an AI uniquely for them, they lose all need to search for the original source. This deprives the plaintiff not only of direct traffic but also of the entire range of opportunities to monetize his work (attracting clients, strengthening expert status, entering into partnerships).
• Proof of harm: The attached valuation expertise directly links the global success of the defendant's brand, built on false statements, to the plaintiff's direct and future losses, expressed in lost market share and lost profits.

4. The Inconsistence of the "Weak U.S. Nexus" Argument
The defendant may argue that 6,002 visits from the U.S. are statistically insignificant.

• First, the very fact that the defendant's product, based on false statements, is actively used in the U.S. and affects American consumers is sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Lanham Act.
• Second, the false statements were made globally, including being directed at audiences in the U.S. The global success of the defendant's business model, achieved in part through the deception of American users, directly affects its ability to push the plaintiff out of the global market, including Kazakhstan. This extraterritorial effect is a classic basis for applying the Lanham Act.

Concluding Request to the Court
The plaintiff asks the Court to pay special attention to the following undeniable facts:

1.      Direct use of protected elements: The defendant not only adapts texts but also verbatim reproduces protected elements (the copyright symbol © and the author's name), which is direct evidence of reverse passing off and completely refutes any arguments about "generation."

2.      Contrasting promises and reality: The plaintiff provides the Court with a direct comparison of the defendant's bold marketing claims and the evidence base of their falsity.

3.      Protection of small businesses from unfair competition: This case is a clear example of how a technology giant, using false statements to build its business model, suppresses an honest entrepreneur. The Lanham Act was created, in part, to prevent precisely this type of unfair competition.

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff asks the Court to find the defendant's marketing statements misleading and, on this basis, establish a violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

Grounds for Granting the Complaint for Lanham Act Violations Based on Misleading Statements
According to § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (false designation of origin / unfair competition), U.S. courts require the establishment of three key elements:

1. Use in Commerce
The complaint materials reliably confirm:

• The plaintiff earns profit from his publications published on the "Garant Plus" website.
• The defendants earn profit from their products (ChatGPT, Copilot, Azure AI), which include the plaintiff's reprocessed content and are distributed in the U.S. on a commercial basis (paid subscriptions, licenses, corporate plans).
• The use of the plaintiff's content gives the defendants a competitive advantage and leads to its substitution by the defendants' products. As a result, the plaintiff is losing or will lose profit in the future (see Appendix: valuation expertise, with a sworn expert and independent expertise).

2. False or Misleading Representation
The defendants create a false impression among U.S. consumers regarding the origin, affiliation, and quality of the services:

• American users perceive the texts in ChatGPT as "generated by OpenAI's AI," although they are based on the plaintiff's publications, which he created independently without granting the defendant rights to publish them.
• Such statements are qualified as false and misleading, not permissible "puffery," as they concern a specific and verifiable fact.

Precedents:

• Waldman Publishing Corp. v. Landoll, Inc. (43 F.3d 775, 2d Cir. 1994) - found a reverse passing off violation where other people's texts were adapted and passed off as their own.
• POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014) - the Supreme Court found misleading advertising to be a violation of § 43(a).
• Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) - protection extends even to intangible elements (trade dress), without the need to prove secondary meaning.

3. Likelihood of Damage to the Plaintiff
·         The plaintiff has built 25 years of professional experience, published in the form of 1,159 articles.

• The defendants' violations are of critical importance to the plaintiff's business, which is confirmed by the explosive growth of ChatGPT's user base. According to data, the number of users grew from 387 million in September 2024 to 838 million in September 2025, which is an increase of 451 million users (or over 117%) in one year. https://www.pymnts.com/artificial-intelligence-2/2025/sam-altman-openai-has-reached-roughly-800-million-users
• The plaintiff claims that such rapid growth was possible in large part due to the mass unlawful appropriation of intellectual work, including the plaintiff's publications created over 25 years. The expertise confirms that ChatGPT does not index individual publications but is trained on huge datasets, which means the inclusion of all 1,159 of the plaintiff's articles.
• Thus, the defendants created a threat of distributing the plaintiff's unauthorized content to a colossal audience of 838 million users. This is not just a distant threat but a direct consequence of an act of unfair competition, as a result of which the plaintiff will be deprived of clients because the defendants mislead users by claiming that the content was "generated" on their own. The defendants monetize this content through paid subscriptions and other services, while the plaintiff and other authors are deprived of the opportunity to derive income. This act of "reverse passing off" undermines the plaintiff's ability to engage in commercial activities. Even if the growth of the plaintiff's readership and clients was gradual and modest, depriving him of the opportunity to continue this growth based on fair competition represents a substantial and measurable commercial harm. The scale of the audience to which the defendants provide the plaintiff's content is direct proof of the scale of the harm to the plaintiff, as well as a basis for applying the strictest measures to the defendants.
• The defendants use these works on a paid basis, while the authors are deprived of the opportunity to derive income. This deprives the plaintiff of the right to creative and professional growth.
• Even if the growth in the number of readers of the plaintiff's publications was gradual and modest, that is precisely how any small business develops. Depriving this opportunity is equivalent to commercial harm.

Precedent:

• Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (572 U.S. 118, 2014) - the plaintiff must prove that he is within the "zone of interests" of the Lanham Act and that the harm was proximately caused by the defendant's actions.

 
4. International Element (Extraterritorial Application)
The Lanham Act applies to foreign plaintiffs if the defendants' actions have a substantial effect on U.S. commerce.

Key cases:

• Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952)—The Lanham Act applies to actions outside the U.S. if they affect American consumers.
• Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1956)—The presence of at least one strong factor, such as the defendant's citizenship and the absence of conflict with foreign law, is sufficient.
• McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005)—For a foreign plaintiff, a substantial effect on U.S. commerce is sufficient, even without an "enormous scale."

The use of the plaintiff's content by ChatGPT, Copilot, and Azure is confirmed by technical expertise, which established that the plaintiff's publications are included or likely included in the training datasets used by millions of American users. Thus, the plaintiff relies on both the fact of 6,002 direct visits from the U.S. between September 7, 2024, and September 7, 2025, and the overall scale of ChatGPT's user base.

According to several analytical publications, confirmed by statements from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, in September 2025, ChatGPT was used by over 800 million users worldwide, which is about 10% of the planet's population (Economic Times, 2025). Thus, an official from the defendant confirms this argument.

It is important to emphasize that § 43(a) of the Lanham Act does not require proof that every ChatGPT user has seen the plaintiff's works. It is sufficient to establish a real possibility of consumer confusion and the threat of commercial harm to the plaintiff. The evidence presented shows that the system reproduces and presents the plaintiff's work as its own AI-generated result, which in itself creates a risk of the plaintiff losing income and his client base.

Thus, based on the causal link—both the fact of 6,002 visits from the U.S. and the global scale of ChatGPT's use, which includes the plaintiff's publications or the threat of their use—the defendants' actions directly have a substantial effect on U.S. commerce.

In addition, the plaintiff reasonably asserts that the violations are widespread (see Appendix: technical expertise), as ChatGPT indexes and uses the work of not only the plaintiff but also U.S. citizens. This creates a threat of a systemic violation of the rights of American entrepreneurs. In this regard, the plaintiff requests the involvement of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to protect the rights of American authors and fair competition.

Therefore:

• All three elements of § 43(a)—use in commerce, false representation, and likelihood of damage—are documented.
• The extraterritoriality test (substantial effect on U.S. commerce) has also been met.
• The complaint meets the standards of U.S. civil procedure and should be admitted for consideration.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has provided sufficient grounds for all elements required under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, including use in commerce, false designation of origin, and likelihood of damage. Furthermore, the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction is justified due to the substantial effect on U.S. commerce. Thus, the complaint meets the standards for proceeding to trial.

Motion for Accelerated Proceeding and Admission by Conduct
Should Defendants, in their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) / Preliminary Injunction, assert the technical impossibility of extracting or ceasing the use of Plaintiff’s content from their language models without a complete retraining (which would purportedly cause significant financial and business detriment), Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court construe such a declaration as an admission of the core claim of infringement and false designation of origin under §43(a) of the Lanham Act.

This argument would substantially confirm the following:

1.      The fact of continued use and possession of Plaintiff’s content within Defendants’ products.

2.      The structural nature of the infringement, which has already been self-admitted by the Defendants’ model (ChatGPT/GPT-5) during electronic examination. The results of the technical analysis, which demonstrate critically high structural overlap (∼65−70%) and conceptual overlap (∼75−80%) with Plaintiff’s content, qualify as an admission by party-opponent pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D). The claim of technical impossibility for removal effectively serves as a confirmation of this admission.

3.      Irreparable Harm, as it would confirm that Defendants continue to commit Reverse Passing Off—the misappropriation of Plaintiff's work under their own name.

Given that the Defendants themselves, through their tool, have factually confirmed the violations by classifying them as a "derivative adaptation," the Court should not permit Defendants to use technical "complexity" as a shield against liability. Such a declaration of "unextractability," when coupled with self-incriminating evidence, must, at a minimum, lead to the application of an Adverse Inference, and in light of the Spoliation (the destruction of logs and change in model behavior after notice), to an acceleration of the judicial process for the immediate determination of liability.

To ensure a just and speedy resolution of this matter, Plaintiff moves the Court to proceed to a consideration of the case on the Merits, bypassing the lengthy preliminary injunction stage, and to immediately move to determine liability and render judgment on the issue of unfair competition and false designation of origin. This measure is consistent with the principles of Rule 1 FRCP (Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive Determination of every action).

Refutation of Defendants' Accusations

The plaintiff categorically rejects any statements by the defendants that his pre-trial communications were threats, blackmail, or an attempt at extortion. On the contrary, these messages were a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute before going to court, which is standard and encouraged legal practice. The defendants, having completely ignored this correspondence and refused to engage in dialogue, are now not entitled to selectively use its content to negatively characterize the plaintiff. Their silence only indicates that they deliberately chose not to negotiate.

Moreover, referencing pre-trial correspondence is only permissible if the defendants actively participated in it. Thus, during the litigation, the plaintiff has the exclusive right to refer to this correspondence in his favor, not in the defendants'. These communications confirm the plaintiff's good faith intentions and his desire for a pre-trial settlement, and do not serve as a basis for any negative evaluation of his actions.

IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE: DEFENDANT’S MODEL ADMITS STRUCTURAL INFRINGEMENT AND JUSTIFIES JUDICIAL REMEDIES (TRO/DISCOVERY)
As irrefutable and self-admitted evidence of unfair competition and false designation of origin, Plaintiff attaches the results of a technical analysis obtained directly from Defendants’ own tool (the ChatGPT/GPT-5 model) (See Exhibit, “Protocol of Inspection of Electronic Evidence dated September 22, 2025, Registry No. 1581,” p. __________). According to this analysis, the output content provided to users demonstrates a critically high conceptual and structural overlap with Plaintiff’s original publications, including metrics of ~75–80% conceptual overlap and ~65–70% structural overlap.

Thus, the Defendants themselves have effectively admitted that such a result constitutes a “derivative adaptation” which retains the “legal selection and structure” of Plaintiff’s original content. This fact directly rebuts Defendants’ public claims of generating unique content, instead confirming the massive and systematic use of Plaintiff’s content, including its inclusion in the training data set. This self-incrimination by Defendants, demonstrating that the infringement is structural in nature (at the ~55–60% level), presents a classic case of reverse passing off and misappropriation of intellectual labor, in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act and California Common Law.

The existence of specific quantitative data, derived from the Defendant itself, regarding the massive and structural use of Plaintiff’s content unequivocally justifies the need for:

• The immediate issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the clear and ongoing harm.
• The full satisfaction of the Discovery requests to determine the precise scope of unlawful use across all 1,159 of Plaintiff’s original publications.

The systemic and self-admitted nature of this infringement is a direct basis for a claim of unfair competition and false designation of origin under §43(a) of the Lanham Act.

CHRONOLOGY OF WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION)
Plaintiff provides the Court with an exhaustive chronology of the behavioral changes of the Defendants’ models (GPT-X), documenting three stages of interaction with Plaintiff’s protected content (See Exhibit, “Protocol of Inspection of Electronic Evidence dated September 22, 2025, Registry No. 1581,” p. __________):

1.      Stage 1 (Adaptation): Initially, the model systematically adapted Plaintiff’s content, reproducing its structure and legal blocks (Request 1).

2.      Stage 2 (Filtered Adaptation): Following the Defendants’ receipt of the Notice of Infringement between April and September 2025, the model’s behavior shifted to filtered adaptation, with partial exclusion of Plaintiff’s content.

3.      Stage 3 (Refusal): Subsequently, the model began to entirely refuse to reproduce or adapt Plaintiff’s content.

This documented chronology proves two critical facts:

• The presumption of Defendants’ knowledge of the ongoing infringement (knowledge of ongoing infringement), as changes were implemented after receiving notice.
• The commission of Spoliation—the willful destruction or concealment of evidence through the introduction of filters and modification of logs after a legal dispute arose.

Such behavior not only substantiates the claim for punitive damages for Willful Misconduct but MANDATES the Court to apply an Adverse Inference and immediately grant Discovery requests for:

• (i) internal Change Logs;
• (ii) Filter Policy Documentation and blocking policies;
• (iii) internal correspondence concerning Plaintiff’s content, to establish the precise scope and commencement of the spoliation.

Furthermore, Plaintiff requests the Court to identify the specific individuals involved in modifying the model’s behavior and deleting logs, to confirm the systematic nature of the concealment and the possibility of its extension to analogous cases.

According to information revealed in The New York Times v. OpenAI (S.D.N.Y., No. 1:23-cv-11195), the Defendants have already been subject to a court order requiring the preservation and segregation of all output log data, including data otherwise subject to deletion, and have been accused of deleting and modifying data after the litigation began. This precedent further confirms the necessity of judicial intervention and the application of sanctions due to the manifest risk of evidence loss and recurrent spoliation.

LEGAL QUALIFICATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF FACTS
The data provided by the Defendants’ tool (ChatGPT/GPT-5), which is under the Defendants’ control, qualifies as an agent’s statement (admission by party-opponent) pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D).

Plaintiff moves to establish the aforementioned facts under Rule 36 FRCP (Requests for Admission), which will render them conclusively established facts for the purpose of further proceedings and relieve Plaintiff of the burden of proving them.

The totality of facts indicating a change in the model's behavior after receiving the notice of infringement strongly suggests willful failure to preserve electronically stored information (failure to preserve electronically stored information) within the meaning of Rule 37(e) FRCP, which OBLIGATES the Court to issue an adverse inference and impose sanctions against the Defendants.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
1.      Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2003–2005): Court applied adverse inference and sanctions for email destruction after the defendant knew of the dispute.

2.      Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002): Adverse inference is permissible where destruction was willful or negligent and the evidence would have been unfavorable.

3.      Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (N.D. Cal. 2012): Court applied adverse inference due to inadequate preservation of evidence and delays.

4.      Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008): Established criteria for TRO/Preliminary Injunction: (i) likelihood of success on the merits, (ii) threat of irreparable harm, (iii) balance of equities, (iv) public interest.

5.      Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947 (7th Cir. 1992): Awarded treble damages for willful infringement under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (false designation of origin).

REQUEST FOR CRITICAL ASSESSMENT AND SANCTIONS
Furthermore, with the established facts of spoliation, Plaintiff requests the Court to critically evaluate Defendants' arguments (including their denials of content use) and to consider expanding Discovery in Plaintiff’s favor to ensure the acquisition of all relevant evidence.

In light of the confirmed facts of spoliation, Plaintiff additionally requests the Court to consider imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e) FRCP—up to and including the issuance of an adverse inference, the exclusion of Defendants' evidence, or a partial default judgment upon confirmation of willfulness. This position is fully consistent with judicial practice, as seen in cases such as Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2010) and New York Times Co. v. OpenAI (S.D.N.Y., 2023–2025).

PLAINTIFF'S DEMANDS (Requests for Relief)

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment in its favor and requests the Court to grant the following relief:

1. For an Order granting Declaratory Judgment that the Defendants' actions, as detailed in the Complaint, including the use of the Plaintiff's adapted publications and public marketing statements regarding content "generation," constitute:

* Unfair Competition,

* False Designation of Origin,

* False Endorsement,

* and False Advertising, in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) and California common law regarding Unfair Competition.

2. For an Order granting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction, aimed at halting Unfair Competition and the commercial use of the Plaintiff's content within the Defendants' paid and subscription services, prohibiting the Defendants, their agents, and affiliated persons from:

* (a) Using, reproducing, adapting, distributing, or otherwise commercially exploiting the Plaintiff's publications posted on www.garantplus.kz (1,159 publications specified in the Exhibits), to the extent that such use reproduces, represents, or misleads regarding the origin of the works;

* (b) Training, fine-tuning, or otherwise utilizing the Plaintiff's publications as part of the training/fine-tuning datasets for any of the Defendants' models (including ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot, Azure OpenAI Service) in relation to the specific URLs/output examples detailed in the Exhibits;

* (c) Stating or implying that the Plaintiff endorses or is affiliated with the Defendants' products concerning the disputed content.

3. In the alternative, and to the extent the Court deems necessary, for an Order granting a restrictive TRO/PI covering: (i) the specific URLs and ChatGPT output documented in the Complaint; or (ii) at a minimum, the key article at https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody (see Exhibit).

4. For any other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The plaintiff also considers submitting the following supplement to the complaint after the Court accepts it:

5.      The plaintiff demands that the defendants completely remove any of the plaintiff's materials used for training, testing, or functioning of artificial intelligence models from all used repositories, indexes, caches, and other storage, and take measures to ensure that the removed data no longer affects the models' behavior, with confirmation of the fact of removal and elimination of the effect through independent expertise, the results of which must be submitted to the Court.

This remedy is technically feasible—by completely resetting the relevant products and retraining them on "cleaned" data, including cleaning training sets, indexes, and caches—and is legally justified to restore the plaintiff's rights and prevent further violations. Furthermore, the requested measure serves to protect public interests and the principles of fair business practice.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Plaintiff:         Sagidanov Samat Serikovich

Legal and mailing address: 010000, Astana, Baraeva st. 13 apt. 135, Kazakhstan

Mobile: +7-702-847-80-20 (WhatsApp)

Email: garantplus.kz@mail.ru

(hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, acting pro se, who engages in business activities based on providing legal services), Pro Se

Defendant:     OpenAI Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the defendant and/or OpenAI, Inc.)

Legal address: 3180 18th Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, United States

Website: https://www.openai.com

Principal business: research and development in the field of artificial intelligence, including language models (GPT), multimodal models (e.g., ChatGPT, DALL·E), Codex, OpenAI API, and other products.

Defendant:     Microsoft Corporation

Legal address: 555 California St, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94104, United States

Website: https://www.microsoft.com

Phone: +1 (800) 642-7676

Principal business: provision of software, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence products and services, including Microsoft Azure and integration of AI-related solutions in partnership with OpenAI.

Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum in Support of the Motion

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff, Samat Serikovich Sagidanov, hereby moves this Honorable Court for the entry of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary Injunction against Defendants, OpenAI, L.L.C. and Microsoft Corporation, as well as their agents, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them.

The purpose of this Motion is to immediately cease and prevent the further unauthorized use, distribution, and "passing off" of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications, published on the website www.garantplus.kz (hereinafter – "Protected Publications"), which constitutes unfair competition and an infringement of the Plaintiff's rights.

This Motion is supported by the attached Declarations of the Plaintiff, the proposed draft Order for a TRO, and this accompanying Memorandum of Law.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Samat Serikovich Sagidanov is the creator and owner of the exclusive copyrights to an extensive collection of unique and valuable publications posted on his website, www.garantplus.kz. These rights arise automatically upon the creation of the work and are recognized by international conventions, including the Berne Convention, ratified by the United States.

Defendants, who operate some of the largest and most influential artificial intelligence platforms in the world, including ChatGPT, have used the Plaintiff's Protected Publications without authorization to train their Large Language Models (LLMs). This has resulted in the Defendants’ products now utilizing responses that accurately reproduce, adapt, or are derivative of the Plaintiff's Protected Publications, creating a false impression of the source of the information, competing with the Plaintiff, and undermining his business model.

The Plaintiff’s notification to the Defendants on October 9, 2025, regarding the transition to a paid monetization model converted the continued use of the content into Direct Substitutional Competition. The Plaintiff clearly demonstrates that, by using his exclusive content within their own paid and subscription services (ChatGPT Plus, Copilot Pro), the Defendants have created a false competitive alternative. This fact, in and of itself, constitutes a material element of Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), making the Plaintiff’s success on the merits highly probable.

Based on the annexed documents to the Complaint, it has been reliably established that the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications are being adapted and "passed off" as the Defendants' own to ChatGPT users under the pretext of generation, which directly violates the principles of fair competition. The Defendants' actions constitute a continuing and escalating infringement of the Plaintiff's copyrights and, critically for this motion, an act of unfair competition in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

The Plaintiff also draws the Court's attention to the systematic, deliberate, and cyclical nature of the Defendants’ actions, aimed at concealing the facts of the unlawful use of the Plaintiff’s content and continuing to extract unjust enrichment.

Following the Plaintiff’s initial pre-suit demand letter sent to legal@openai.com (see Exhibit No. [Insert Exhibit Number for the first demand letter, e.g., Exhibit B]), the Defendants temporarily imposed restrictions on ChatGPT's functionality, hiding direct links to the Plaintiff's website www.garantplus.kz. These changes were documented by the Plaintiff and are confirmed by the attached screenshots and technical expert analysis, indicating a sequence of functional restrictions imposed on ChatGPT (see Exhibit No. [Insert Exhibit Number for screenshots demonstrating temporary restrictions]).

However, subsequent checks by the Plaintiff, confirmed by notarized screenshots (Exhibits No. [Insert numbers of new screenshots, e.g., 16, 21, 22, 23, 32, 67, 99]), demonstrate that the Defendants have since lifted these restrictions, and ChatGPT continues to unauthorizedly adapt and use the Plaintiff’s copyrighted publications. Moreover, ChatGPT’s responses are again accompanied by direct links to garantplus.kz and even specific articles, or explicitly mention "Garant Plus" as the source for content adaptation (see Exhibits No. [Repeat numbers of new screenshots]).

Such conduct by the Defendants — consistently imposing restrictions after notification, only to lift them and resume infringements — directly indicates a conscious disregard for the Plaintiff's legitimate demands. This suggests an attempt to mislead both users and, potentially, the Court by creating an impression of resolving the violations while the Defendants continue to profit unfairly from others' labor.

Thus, the continuing nature of the violations, despite repeated notifications and even temporary attempts to rectify them by the Defendants, is direct evidence of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff and a high likelihood of further infringement in the absence of a court order. The Plaintiff asks the Court to critically evaluate such actions by the Defendants when considering this case and, especially, when deciding on the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order.

This Motion is aimed at preventing further, future infringements, curbing unfair competition, and protecting the fundamental rights of intellectual property and fair business practices in the age of artificial intelligence.

It is important to emphasize that the basis of this Motion is the act of unfair competition, manifested as false designation of origin and passing off — direct violations of §43(a) of the Lanham Act. Unlike a copyright claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants mislead users about the source of the content, present others' texts as the result of their AI's work, and thereby destroy the Plaintiff's competitive position. This circumstance makes the TRO justified and urgently necessary, regardless of the Defendants' potential defense under the fair use doctrine, which is inapplicable to the Lanham Act.

Preservation of the "Status Quo" and Protection of Plaintiff's Rights: Preventing Irreversible Harm
This Motion is filed not so much for the need to definitively establish the fact of infringement at this stage, but rather to prevent irreversible and ongoing harm that may be caused to the Plaintiff by the Defendants' continued use of the contested content.

The main legal basis for this motion for injunctive relief relies on:

• Application of the status quo doctrine: The goal of a temporary injunction is to preserve the existing state of affairs, preventing the harm from worsening until the court hears the case on the merits. Allowing the Defendants to continue using and monetizing the Plaintiff's content constitutes an alteration of the status quo in favor of the infringer, which is unacceptable.
• Need to protect the Plaintiff's rights from potential further infringement and difficulty in enforcing a judgment in the future: Every day without an injunction exacerbates the "contamination" of the models, increases the scale of unfair competition, and makes the restoration of the Plaintiff's rights after a final decision increasingly difficult, if not impossible.
• Ensuring adequate protection of the Plaintiff's rights even in the absence of a final finding of infringement at this stage: At this stage, the court does not issue a final ruling on culpability but merely assesses the likelihood of success on the merits. A preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent harm while the proceedings are underway.

Thus, the Plaintiff's request is aimed exclusively at protecting his lawful rights in the face of an obvious risk of their current and ongoing infringement by the Defendants. If the Defendants truly have not used the Plaintiff's content or possess the technical capability to exclude its use without disrupting the functioning of the ChatGPT model, the enforcement of a possible court order would demonstrate their good faith, openness to legal dialogue, and willingness to eliminate any potential violations, rather than leading to wrongful losses.

Therefore, the Plaintiff hereby requests the Court to consider issuing a TRO to immediately suspend the operation of the ChatGPT models that use his content, and to impose a coercive fine of $1 for each day of non-compliance with the court order to ensure the enforcement of the Plaintiff's rights and prevent further unfair competition.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND SUPPORTING THE MOTION
·         The Plaintiff is a recognized author and entrepreneur who created and develops the website www.garantplus.kz. The Protected Publications are the result of significant intellectual, temporal, and financial investment by the Plaintiff, providing unique and valuable content in the field of legal assistance to the public.

• The Plaintiff owns the exclusive copyrights to the Protected Publications in accordance with applicable international copyright law, including his rights under the Berne Convention.
• The Defendants, OpenAI and Microsoft, are using the Plaintiff's Protected Publications without permission to train their LLMs, including but not limited to, the models underlying ChatGPT and future versions like ChatGPT 5.
• As shown in the attached Declaration of the Plaintiff and Exhibit A (comparisons of content in the linguistic expert analysis), the Defendants' products systematically use responses that reproduce, adapt, or are derivative of the Plaintiff's Protected Publications. This proves not only the fact of use but also the deep integration of the Plaintiff’s content into the Defendants’ functionality, creating a false designation of the content’s origin, thereby undermining the principles of fair competition.
• The Defendants' actions create direct competition with the Plaintiff by offering his unique content on a paid basis, thereby undermining his business model and potential licensing revenues. They gain an unfair advantage by "passing off" others' content as the result of their AI's work, which is a classic act of unfair competition and "passing off."
• The Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to contact the Defendants, notify them of the infringements, and propose an out-of-court settlement (see Exhibit B - correspondence). However, the Defendants either ignored the requests or gave evasive answers, failing to demonstrate a real intent to cure the violations and showing a lack of good faith and reasonableness in conducting their business.

III. STANDARDS FOR ISSUING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Under Ninth Circuit law, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate:

• Likelihood of Success on the Merits — in this case, on the claim of unfair competition.
• Likelihood of Irreparable Harm in the absence of an injunction.
• Balance of Equities tipping in his favor.
• The injunction is in the Public Interest.

The Plaintiff may also utilize the "sliding scale approach," where a stronger showing on the merits reduces the requirement for irreparable harm, or vice versa.

IV. ARGUMENTATION

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Plaintiff is highly likely to prove unfair competition and, ultimately, the infringement of his copyrights.

• Unfair Competition (Violation of Lanham Act §43(a) and Unfair Competition):

The Defendants' actions, consisting of the unauthorized commercial use of the Plaintiff's unique content and the subsequent offering of a competing product that essentially "passes off as its own" the results of the Plaintiff's intellectual labor, constitute a classic example of unfair business practice and "false designation of origin." They gain an unfair advantage by avoiding the costs of content creation, thereby undermining the Plaintiff's viability in the market and misleading consumers about the content's origin. The Plaintiff owns all rights to the Protected Publications, confirmed by evidence of authorship (see Exhibit C), and the Defendants use these publications in a manner that creates a false association or misleads as to the content's origin or sponsorship. Furthermore, according to the attached notarized ChatGPT screenshots, the adaptation of the Plaintiff's copyrighted text by ChatGPT is reliably established, directly indicating unfair competition by the Defendants.

• Copyrights (for further litigation):

The Plaintiff is the owner of original and copyrighted Protected Publications, whose rights are recognized by international law and the Berne Convention. The Defendants had access to the Protected Publications (via public internet scanning) and reproduced substantial parts of them in their products without permission. Exhibit A clearly demonstrates a striking similarity between the Plaintiff's content and ChatGPT's responses, indicating direct copying or deep adaptation. Moreover, according to the attached expert linguistic analysis, it can be asserted with a high degree of probability that the text published in ChatGPT's responses is a derivative work of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications and reproduces both the compositional and substantive structure of the Plaintiff's original text (see Exhibit).

The likelihood of the Plaintiff's success on the merits is significantly enhanced by the Defendant’s procedural conduct. The Willful Breach of the Duty to Preserve Evidence (Declaration 17/10) is strong circumstantial evidence of the Defendant's liability for violation of the law.

Such Willful Bad Faith convincingly demonstrates that the Defendant is attempting to conceal evidence that would confirm the unauthorized "ingestion" of the Plaintiff's content, which, in turn, substantially increases the likelihood that the Plaintiff will prove his claim of Unfair Competition and Copyright Infringement.

B. Irreparable Harm in the Absence of a Judicial Injunction (Key Emphasis on the Future)

The Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the Defendants are not immediately prohibited from the further use of his Protected Publications in the context of unfair competition. This harm is ongoing and cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages.

The irreparable damage to the Plaintiff continues to accumulate because the technical impossibility of selective "unlearning" of integrated data (as detailed in the Complaint) directly destroys the commercial exclusivity of the Plaintiff's paid content. Every day that the Defendants continue to provide access to the Plaintiff's content through their paid services, they effectively undermine the Plaintiff's market, forcing him to cease his lawful commercial activity. The damage inflicted cannot be remedied by monetary compensation, as it consists of the complete destruction of the uniqueness and market value of the Plaintiff's asset. This irreversible technical and commercial harm justifies the demand for a complete suspension (or retraining) of the Defendants' models.

• Ongoing Undermining of the Business Model and Competitive Advantage: Every day the Defendants continue to use the Plaintiff's Protected Publications for training and operation of ChatGPT, as well as illegally adapting the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications, they actively undermine the Plaintiff's unique value and business model. The Plaintiff, who invested significant resources in content creation, cannot compete with a free (to the user) product that is essentially a "pirated" version of his own intellectual labor, presented as an original AI product. This ongoing undermining leads to an unmeasurable loss of traffic, potential licensing revenue, and destruction of reputation.
• Loss of Exclusivity and Control: The essence of copyright lies in the owner's exclusive right to control the use of their work. The Defendants' actions deprive the Plaintiff of this fundamental right. Once the Plaintiff's unique content has been integrated into a large-scale AI model, it permanently loses its exclusivity. This loss of control and exclusivity is fundamental and irreplaceable harm that no monetary sum can restore.
• Irreversible "Contamination" of Models and Inheritance of Infringements: Threat to Future Judicial Relief

The Plaintiff emphasizes that the Plaintiff's Protected Publications have already been deeply "ingested" into the architecture of the Defendants' Large Language Models (LLM), including all existing versions of ChatGPT (GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4 Turbo) and their future modifications, such as the anticipated GPT-5. These models do not develop from scratch but iteratively: each subsequent version is a fine-tuning of the previous one, retaining its parameters, behavioral patterns, and "knowledge" obtained during pretraining, fine-tuning, and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). This means that information once used in training, including data from the website www.garantplus.kz, can persist at the level of millions and billions of weights, algorithmic dependencies, logical structure, semantics, and even the unique style and tonality of the model's behavior.

As widely recognized in the scientific and technical community and confirmed by the principles of neural network operation, an LLM does not "memorize" or store specific files like a database. Instead, it assimilates and distributes knowledge across its entire complex architecture. Removing the influence of a specific source, such as content from the Plaintiff's website, is technically extremely difficult or practically impossible without a fundamental restructuring (or destruction) of the entire model. This can be compared to attempting to "remove ink from water": it requires "dumping" the entire model, meaning completely retraining it, which is a colossal task requiring hundreds of millions of dollars and months of work. Consequently, any exploitation of a model trained in violation of the Plaintiff's rights entails a continuous, ongoing, and current infringement of his rights, including in new and future versions of the Defendants' products. If copyrighted materials of the Plaintiff were used in the training of GPT models, subsequent versions carry architectural and behavioral continuity, are rendered "contaminated", and continue to disseminate the influence of these infringements.

This "contamination" creates permanent and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by monetary means. Even in the event of the Plaintiff's final victory in litigation, it will be technically impossible to "remove" the influence of the already embedded content without destroying the entire model or ceasing its use. The model will be permanently "contaminated" by the results of copyright infringement, rendering any compensatory measures insufficient for the full restoration of the Plaintiff's position. The market and users will already be accustomed to the product based on infringed rights, making the restoration of the Plaintiff's competitive position virtually impossible. Furthermore, the continued exploitation of the model based on the disputed data significantly hinders the execution of a future judicial decision, as it will be impossible to separate legitimate and non-legitimate parts of the training dataset, and the risk of reusing "contaminated" versions in new products will persist.

Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts that, without the immediate intervention of the Court, he will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by monetary compensation. This harm stems directly from the Willful Breach of the Duty to Preserve Evidence (recorded by the Declaration of October 17, 2025 (see Exhibit E, Ref. No. 17/10)).

The documented risk of Spoliation is itself irreparable harm. The Defendant's deliberate refusal to confirm the implementation of a Legal Hold (Notice of 14/10) demonstrates that critical digital evidence (ingestion logs) is under the immediate threat of destruction or alteration. If these LLM logs are lost, the Plaintiff will permanently lose the sole opportunity to conclusively prove the central fact of his claim. The loss of such a procedural opportunity is the highest form of irreparable harm, demanding the immediate intervention of the Court in the form of a TRO.

The Court Must Include an Obligation for Expedited Discovery in the TRO.

In light of the proven risk of Spoliation, the Plaintiff insists that the TRO must include an obligation for Expedited Discovery. The Plaintiff believes that the Court will rule on the immediate obligation of the Defendant to grant the Plaintiff (or his forensic expert) accelerated access to the digital data and correspondence specified in the Legal Hold Notice of October 14, 2025. This measure is necessary to prevent further concealment or destruction of evidence and to immediately verify its integrity and existence, as the Defendant has previously demonstrated its inability and/or unwillingness to comply with procedural obligations voluntarily.

The Plaintiff believes that the Defendants, as technological leaders of the industry, may present visible measures to the Court to create the illusion of compliance with a court order. However, these measures do not ensure 100% compliance with the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO, Section VI, 1.B), even if the prohibition concerns only one article, such as https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody. These measures include:

• "Forgetting" through Fine-Tuning/Unlearning: Defendants may apply machine learning methods, such as targeted fine-tuning with negative examples, to reduce the influence of my article in the model's memory. However, 2025 research indicates that unlearning is only 80–90% effective (arXiv, SoK on LLM Unlearning). This means that in 10–20% of cases, the model may reproduce the "roots" of my article — its ideas, structure, or legal formulations (e.g., the structure of a claim for lost profits) — through generalization. These "roots" generate "new fish" — paraphrases or adaptations that violate the TRO, as it prohibits use in any form. Complete removal is only possible through model retraining, which requires suspending all Defendants' products, including ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Azure OpenAI Service, and costs billions of dollars.
• Output Filtering: Defendants can implement filters that check responses for similarity to my article before outputting them to the user. This measure is quickly implemented, but 2025 research confirms: filters have only 95% accuracy (SemEval-2025, Task 4). In 5% of cases, paraphrases or ideas from my article (e.g., legal phrases) "slip through" to users, like a "fish" escaping the net. Such responses violate the TRO, as they constitute "adaptation" or "derivative content" prohibited by the order. Moreover, filters do not eliminate the "roots" of the article embedded in the model, making them merely a temporary measure creating the illusion of compliance.
• Exclusion from Future Training Data: Defendants may exclude the website www.garantplus.kz from the data used for training new models (e.g., ChatGPT 5). This measure is 100% effective in preventing the direct use of new content but does not solve the problem of publications already embedded in current models (e.g., GPT-4). My article, embedded in GPT-4, continues to generate "new fish" — responses based on its ideas or structure. Furthermore, the "thought" of the article (its generalized patterns, such as legal formulations) is transferred to new models through transfer learning. 2025 research confirms: transfer learning preserves knowledge from the old model if it is not completely removed (arXiv, SoK on LLM Unlearning). Even with a website blacklist, the "roots" of my article can generate "new fish" in ChatGPT 5, violating the TRO. Complete removal is only possible through retraining the old model, which the Defendants are not doing due to enormous costs.

Thus, none of these measures guarantee 100% compliance with the court order, even for a single article. This is due to the following reasons:

• Filter Limitations: Filters with 95% accuracy allow 5% of responses containing paraphrases or ideas from my article to pass through. This is like a net that catches obvious copies of the "fish" but fails to capture its "descendants" — texts based on the model's generalized knowledge. Such responses violate the TRO, as any "reproduction or adaptation" is prohibited (Section VI, 1.B).
• Unlearning Shortcomings: "Unlearning" methods reduce the article's influence by 80–90% but do not completely remove it from the model's parameters (weights). The model can create the illusion of generating similar legal texts based on the article's "roots" (ideas, structure), like a plant that continues to grow from remaining roots. 2025 research confirms: complete removal requires retraining, which is tantamount to suspending ChatGPT.
• Transfer Learning Risks: New models (ChatGPT 5) inherit knowledge from GPT-4 through transfer learning. My article, embedded in GPT-4, transfers its patterns (e.g., claim structure) to the new model, even if www.garantplus.kz is excluded. This is like transferring the "roots" of a plant to a new garden, where they continue to generate "new fish." 2025 research confirms: transfer learning preserves generalized knowledge if it is not completely removed.
• Systemic Impossibility of Removing a Single Article: My article is a "fish" in the model's "ocean" of data. Filters and unlearning catch obvious copies but do not eliminate the "roots" — the generalized ideas the model uses to create the illusion of generating responses. Full compliance with the TRO requires retraining the model from scratch, which costs billions of dollars and is equivalent to suspending all Defendants' products, including ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Azure OpenAI Service. Without retraining, the Defendants cannot guarantee that my article or its "thought" will not be reproduced, making their continued operation a direct violation of the TRO.

In this regard, the Plaintiff is compelled to attach a Motion for Contempt of Court in advance to draw the Court's attention to the inevitable consequences of non-compliance with the order. The Defendants, aware of technical limitations (5% filter error, 10–20% unlearning risk, transfer learning risks), may consciously create the illusion of complying with the TRO by implementing incomplete measures to continue benefiting from unfair competition in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)). Such actions demonstrate either incompetence or conscious disregard for the court order, which constitutes contempt of court (TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 1983).

The Plaintiff explicitly asks the Court to subsequently compel the Defendants to suspend the operation of ChatGPT and related products (including Microsoft Copilot, Azure OpenAI Service), which will entail significant financial and reputational losses for the Defendants who continue unfair competition, and thereafter to impose a minimum coercive fine of $1 for each day of non-compliance.

These measures are necessary to prevent further violations and protect the Plaintiff's rights. The $1/day fine is a minimum sanction, aimed not at suspending the Defendants' business but at ensuring compliance with the TRO and demonstrating the seriousness of the court order. Without such measures, the Defendants will continue to use my article, creating the illusion of compliance through incomplete measures (filters with 5% error, unlearning with 10–20% risk), thereby undermining the principles of fair competition and the Plaintiff's rights.

The Plaintiff draws the Court's attention to the systemic problem: if the Court does not impose sanctions, it will create a dangerous precedent allowing tech giants to ignore court orders under the guise of "technical limitations," diminishing authors' rights and undermining the foundations of fair competition.

In the age of artificial intelligence, where models are trained on vast datasets, the protection of intellectual property becomes critically important. The Court must send a clear signal that technology is not above the law by implementing the practice of minimal fines ($1/day) to ensure compliance with orders and protect the rights of plaintiffs such as myself, without the need for disproportionate security bonds that the Defendants might demand to continue the infringements (Eitel v. McCool, 1986). This will streamline the work of the US judicial system, prevent future complaints, and reinforce confidence in justice in AI-related cases.

Thus, the Plaintiff hereby insists and requests the Court to consider issuing a TRO to immediately suspend the operation of the ChatGPT models that use his content, and to impose a coercive fine of $1 for each day of non-compliance with the court order to ensure the enforcement of the Plaintiff's rights and prevent further unfair competition.

B. Balance of Hardships and Public Interest
·         Balance of Hardships (Balance of Equities): The hardships the Plaintiff will face in the absence of an injunction (loss of control, destruction of business model, immeasurable harm) significantly outweigh the hardships the Defendants will face in complying with the injunction. The Defendants are massive corporations with colossal resources that can adapt their systems to comply with a court order. Conversely, the Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur/attorney whose very existence directly depends on the uniqueness and value of his content.

• Public Interest: Granting the injunction is in the public interest. Protecting authors from unfair competition and false designation of origin is critically important for maintaining a healthy market and the incentive to create new, original content. Allowing large AI companies to freely use others' content without permission, passing it off as their own results, will undermine incentives for authors to create new content and lead to the degradation of information quality and fair competition. It will also send a clear signal that technology cannot operate outside the law.

The Plaintiff hereby emphasizes that the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is strictly limited in scope and is not aimed at blocking the overall operations of OpenAI, Microsoft, or the ChatGPT platform. The purpose of this application is solely to cease a specific and limited infringement of the Plaintiff's rights, concerning a narrow set of copyrighted publications posted on the website www.garantplus.kz. The Plaintiff does not demand the shutdown of products, the cessation of using general responses, or interference with the model's architecture—he merely seeks to preserve control over his original content, prevent its further unauthorized use, and stop the misrepresentation of its source. This position demonstrates the Plaintiff's good faith and moderation of his demands, making the requested injunction executable and proportionate.

Inapplicability of the "Fair Use" Doctrine
The Defendants cannot find refuge behind the shield of the Fair Use doctrine, as their actions extend far beyond its legitimate goals. Unlike cases where AI models are used to create truly transformative works, the Defendants' products systematically reproduce, adapt, and directly "pass off" the Plaintiff's Protected Publications as their own, as clearly demonstrated by the notarized screenshots and linguistic expert analysis. Such use is not transformative; on the contrary, it represents a direct commercial appropriation of others' intellectual labor. Moreover, the Defendants' actions create direct and destructive competition with the Plaintiff in his own market by offering his unique content for free, thus undermining his business model. This directly contradicts the fundamental principle of Fair Use—the protection of the potential market for or value of the original work. Thus, any assertion of fair use by the Defendants must be rejected, as their actions are aimed at unfair competition and the direct extraction of profit from others' copyrights without permission. No agreement exists between the parties for the lawful use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications.

International Copyright Protection by Virtue of Creation
The Plaintiff's copyrighted publications on the website www.garantplus.kz are under the unconditional protection of international conventions, including the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, ratified by both the Republic of Kazakhstan and the United States of America. Under the provisions of the Berne Convention, copyright arises automatically upon the creation of the work, without the need for any formal registration or other conditions. The fact of authorship by the Plaintiff, Sagidanov S.S., is confirmed by notarized screenshots from the website where the Plaintiff's signature appears under each publication. Furthermore, the explicit notice on the website, "All materials are protected by copyright. Copying, automated processing, use for commercial purposes are prohibited without the consent of the copyright holder. Attorney Sagidanov S.S.," unequivocally demonstrates the Plaintiff's intent to retain control over his content and categorically forbids any unauthorized use, including automated processing and commercial application. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s authorship is confirmed by notarized screenshots of the HTML code which names Sagidanov S.S. as the author from the moment of publication. Thus, the Defendants cannot in good faith use the protected materials without the Plaintiff's express permission. In this regard, the only valid argument for the Defendants' use of the copyrighted publications can only be the provision of a written agreement of consent from the author to use his copyrighted publications.

C. The Risk of Setting a Precedent of Tacit Encouragement of Unjust Enrichment
Denial of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction could be perceived by the Defendants and other technology corporations as tacit approval of the practice of unauthorized use of others' copyrighted publications for commercial purposes. In a situation where the infringer directly profits from using original content without the author's consent, the lack of a timely judicial response not only exacerbates the injustice against the Plaintiff but also creates the risk of solidifying a model of "unjust enrichment through AI exploitation" without licensing agreements. This could incentivize the further continuation of the systematic appropriation of others' intellectual labor. Immediate court intervention via a TRO is urgently necessary to demonstrate that the court will not tolerate such forms of unfair competition and unlawful use of copyrighted content, whether committed in the digital or physical space.

Furthermore, a Preliminary Injunction is necessary for the purpose of securing the Plaintiff's rights and preventing violations by the Defendants throughout the entire period of considering and resolving this case on the merits.

Confirmation by Case Law: Preliminary Injunctions in Intellectual Property Infringement Cases
The Plaintiff believes that the precedents listed below convincingly demonstrate the readiness of U.S. courts to grant motions for preliminary injunctive relief in cases of copyright infringement and unfair competition. These decisions confirm that courts actively use the preliminary injunction tool to stop ongoing infringements, especially when it involves the unauthorized use of content through technological platforms or for commercial gain:

1.      A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2000): In this landmark case, the court affirmed the issuance of a preliminary injunction because the Napster platform facilitated widespread infringement of music copyrights by allowing users to exchange them without permission from the rights holders. The court recognized that such sharing inflicted irreparable harm on the rights holders by undermining their ability to monetize their works.

2.      In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003): Analogous to Napster, the court affirmed a preliminary injunction against the Aimster service, which also provided means for illegal music file sharing. The court found that the company contributed to copyright infringement, and an immediate injunction was necessary to prevent further harm.

3.      Lakedreams v. Steve Taylor, 932 F.2d 1133 (5th Cir. 1991): In this case, the Defendant distributed t-shirts with the Plaintiff’s copyrighted design without permission. The court granted a preliminary injunction, recognizing that the unauthorized commercial use of another's protected work causes irreparable harm to the copyright holder.

4.      Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991): This precedent was significant in the hip-hop industry. The court granted a preliminary injunction against rapper Biz Markie for using a sample of a Gilbert O'Sullivan song without permission, emphasizing that even minor unauthorized use of protected material is a copyright violation requiring immediate cessation.

5.      Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1995): The court granted a preliminary injunction against the defendant, who reprinted articles from Russian media without permission. This case confirmed that copyright infringement of textual content distributed through publications is also grounds for temporary injunctive relief.

6.      Wright v. Doe, No. 2:22-cv-00001 (C.D. Cal. 2022): In a more recent context, this precedent (though not an appellate decision) demonstrates the ongoing practice of granting preliminary injunctions in cases where defendants sold digital images that infringed the plaintiff's copyrights, which is relevant in the era of digital content.

Thus, the Plaintiff wishes to draw the Court's attention to the high likelihood of success on the merits, considering the notarized screenshots of the copyright violations presented to the court, the results of the linguistic expert analysis, and the evident ongoing nature of the harm and the impossibility of rectifying it without immediate court intervention.

V. SECURITY BOND REQUIREMENTS
The Plaintiff is prepared to post a reasonable security bond as required by the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65(c) (FRCP), to secure the potential losses of the Defendants should the temporary injunction be wrongfully entered.

However, the Plaintiff requests the Court to determine the amount of the bond based on the lawfulness of the use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications, as the Defendants' losses are only possible under a good-faith business operation of the Defendants, and to take into account the obviousness of the infringement and the public interest. In this regard, the bond amount to cover the Defendants' losses can only be equal to the lawful use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications.

III. Lack of Basis for a High Bond and Motion to Establish the Term and Procedure for Posting
The Plaintiff insists that such "losses" of the Defendants, based on their own infringements, cannot serve as a basis for determining the bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65(c). A security bond is intended to compensate for losses if the injunction was wrongfully issued. In this case, if the Defendants' statements confirm that their losses are associated with the cessation of using the contested content, this will attest to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's claims, not the "wrongfulness" of the injunction.

Requiring the Defendants to be compensated and a high bond to be posted is only possible based on their good-faith business activities, not at the expense of the Plaintiff's copyright infringements. Setting an unreasonably high bond would effectively deny the Plaintiff access to justice and the opportunity to protect his work.

A. Motion to Establish the Term and Procedure for Posting the Bond
The Plaintiff resides in the Republic of Kazakhstan, and the immediate posting of a bond in favor of the Court may be objectively difficult due to the necessity of an international bank transfer. Additionally, the Plaintiff is experiencing objective financial difficulties, but believes this should not limit his right to access to justice.

Access to justice is a fundamental right recognized by both international and American law, including but not limited to:

• The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, ensuring "establish Justice";
• The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing due process of law;
• 28 U.S. Code § 1915, providing for the possibility of proceeding in forma pauperis for individuals unable to afford fees;
• Articles 8 and 10 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (right to an effective remedy and fair hearing).

In light of the above, the Plaintiff moves the Court to establish a reasonable term for posting the bond—within six (6) months from the date the Court issues the corresponding order.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to send information regarding the bond posting procedure to his email garantplus.kz@mail.ru, including the applicable details for an international transfer through an authorized bank in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The Plaintiff confirms his readiness to submit a copy of the corresponding payment order to the Court after the payment is made.

Response to a Possible Demand from the Defendants for a Significant Bond
The Plaintiff hereby states that his financial position as an individual entrepreneur and author residing in the Republic of Kazakhstan does not allow him to post an excessively high bond comparable to the budgets of multinational corporations. Setting the bond at an amount exceeding a reasonable sum, for example, $2,000 or more, would be practically equivalent to denial of access to justice, violating both the principle of procedural equality and the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65(c), which stipulates determining the bond amount with consideration of equity.

Moreover, any hypothetical losses of the Defendants are only possible if their activity depends on the ongoing infringement of the Plaintiff's copyrights. With good-faith business practice and adherence to the Plaintiff's rights, no harm can arise from the execution of the TRO. In this regard, the Plaintiff asks the Court to limit the bond amount to a reasonable and symbolic sum, sufficient to comply with the formal requirement but not blocking the realization of the fundamental right to judicial protection, equal to 50 US dollars.

Defendants' Position as an Indirect Admission of Infringements: Inadmissibility of Enrichment at the Expense of Unlawful Activity
The Plaintiff with a high degree of probability anticipates that the Defendants may state to this Honorable Court the technical impossibility of immediately ceasing the use of the Plaintiff's content or the colossal losses that would allegedly arise from the execution of the court order. The Plaintiff asks the Court to consider such arguments by the Defendants as an indirect but unequivocal admission of the claims and a confirmation of the ongoing infringement.

If the Defendants assert that their core product, ChatGPT, "effectively operates daily at the expense of the Plaintiff's copyright infringements and thereby profits," and that the suspension of this operation would cause "billion-dollar losses," this directly confirms several critically important facts:

1.      The fact of ongoing, active commercial use of the Plaintiff's protected content.

2.      The fact of extracting significant commercial benefit (profit) from this unauthorized use.

3.      The fact that their "business activity" in this part is based on the unlawful appropriation of others' intellectual property.

Such statements are not a defense but, in essence, a request to the Court to sanction the continuation of illegal activity after the Defendants have been officially notified of the existence of a dispute and infringements. The Court must not permit the Defendants to continue their enrichment at the expense of confirmed (albeit indirectly, by their own statements) infringements of the Plaintiff's rights. The Plaintiff's lawful rights to the immediate cessation of unfair competition and the protection of his intellectual property cannot be diminished or balanced against the Defendants' alleged losses, which arise solely from their continuing unlawful activity. The Plaintiff insists that such "losses" of the Defendants, based on their own infringements, cannot serve as a basis for determining the bond amount or denying injunctive relief. The Court is obliged to stop the infringements, not allow them to continue under the pretext of "too large losses" for the infringer.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The Plaintiff asserts that he possesses irrefutable and direct evidence that, with a high degree of probability, confirms the infringement of his intellectual property rights by the Defendants. In particular, the Plaintiff provides the court with notarized screenshots of the HTML code (see Exhibit________), which unequivocally fix the date of the original content's creation and identify the Plaintiff as its sole author and rights holder, thereby directly confirming the Plaintiff's ownership of the Protected Publications. Furthermore, the conclusion of the independent linguistic expert analysis (see Exhibit), attached to this motion, details not only the fact of using the Plaintiff's copyrighted text under the pretense of ChatGPT generating its own content but also the direct adaptation of the unique formulations, structure, and style of these publications without any consent from the Plaintiff. This evidence directly and convincingly confirms both the infringement of the Plaintiff's exclusive copyrights (the fact of copying and creating derivative works) and the creation of a false impression of the content's origin, which is a violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act. Thus, the existing evidentiary basis significantly strengthens the Plaintiff's position regarding the high likelihood of success on the merits.

Violation of Lanham Act §43(a): Unfair Competition through False Designation of Origin
In addition to the direct infringement of the Plaintiff's copyrights, the Defendants' actions of unauthorized use of the Protected Publications to train their artificial intelligence model and subsequent use of content based on these publications without proper attribution also constitute a form of unfair competition prohibited by §43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

1. Legal Basis of Lanham Act §43(a)
Section §43(a) of the Lanham Act creates a federal cause of action against the use in commerce of a "false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which... is likely to cause confusion... as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person" (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)). This provision is broadly interpreted by courts as a remedy against unfair competition, including cases of "reverse passing off," where a producer markets the goods or services of another as their own, removing or obscuring the indication of the true creator or source.

To establish a violation of §43(a), the Plaintiff must prove that:

• The Defendant used a false designation of origin or a false representation of fact;
• Such use occurred in commerce;
• This use is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception regarding the affiliation, association, or origin of the goods/services;
• The Plaintiff has suffered or is likely to suffer damage as a result of such use.

2. Application to the Defendants' Actions
The Defendants' actions meet the criteria for a §43(a) violation for the following reasons:

• False Designation of Origin / Reverse Passing Off: By training their AI models on the Plaintiff's Protected Publications and subsequently using copyrighted content that clearly or implicitly reproduces the unique ideas, formulations, and structure of these publications, the Defendants are effectively appropriating the intellectual content created by the Plaintiff. Simultaneously, the ChatGPT responses presented lack any attribution to the Plaintiff's authorship, which is directly confirmed by notarized screenshots. Moreover, by adapting the copyrighted publications for ChatGPT users, the Defendants are effectively substituting themselves for the author. Whereas, when providing adapted text to a ChatGPT user, it is necessary to have both the author's consent for the use of their copyrighted content and to indicate the author's details in the presented ChatGPT response. Thus, by presenting this content as the exclusive result of their ostensible generative technology (or simply as their "product" without crediting the Plaintiff), the Defendants create a false impression among users that they are the sole or primary source or creator of this content. This is a classic example of "reverse passing off," where the Plaintiff's work is presented as their own.
• Use in Commerce: The Defendants' AI systems (e.g., ChatGPT), which used the content, are integrated into their commercial products and services that are widely used in commerce and generate significant profit for the Defendants. The use of the Protected Publications for training these systems and their subsequent monetization unequivocally falls under commercial activity. These findings align with the attached screenshots from the Defendants' website, which explicitly indicate the paid nature of the services provided to users.
• Likelihood of Confusion: Reasonable consumers, encountering content allegedly generated by AI that contains or strongly resembles the Plaintiff's Protected Publications, are likely to be misled regarding the true origin of that content. They may mistakenly believe that:

o    This content was created by OpenAI/Microsoft independently, without using copyrighted sources.

o    The Plaintiff has in some way approved, sponsored, or is associated with the use of his works in the Defendants' products.

o    The Defendants are the original sources of the ideas or expressions that actually belong to the Plaintiff.

o    The Plaintiff benefits from collaboration with the Defendants.

This confusion undermines the Plaintiff's reputation as the exclusive author and source of his unique content.

• Harm to the Plaintiff: The Defendants' actions result in direct harm to the Plaintiff, including the loss of potential licensing revenue for his works, the dilution of his authorial recognition and reputation, and the reduction in value of his intellectual property in the market.

3. Distinction of This Case from Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
The Plaintiff is aware of and acknowledges the principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), which holds that Lanham Act §43(a) cannot be used as a "backup" copyright protection tool or to circumvent its limitations, especially concerning works in the public domain. However, the present case is fundamentally distinguishable from Dastar on several key aspects:

• Status of the Material: In Dastar, the subject of the dispute was a work in the public domain. In contrast, the Plaintiff's publications on www.garantplus.kz are original works protected by current copyright law and have not lost legal protection. The Plaintiff is not seeking perpetual rights to authorship for unprotected works.
• Nature of the Violation: In Dastar, the Court considered the issue of the manufacturer of a physical product (videotapes) and the false designation of its origin. In the present case, the issue involves the unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's digital content for training artificial intelligence systems and the subsequent creation of the appearance of content generation which is, in essence, "derivative" of the Plaintiff's protected works. This directly creates a systemic model of unfair competition and a direct violation of intellectual property rights, not merely misleading about the manufacturer of a physical product. The Defendants' actions go beyond simple copying, affecting the fundamental rights of the author to his protected works.
• Focus on Authorship and Endorsement: In this case, the false designation of origin concerns not only "who made the physical product" but also "who is the true creator or source of the original intellectual content," as well as the false representation of the Plaintiff's endorsement of or association with the Defendants' products.

Thus, the arguments articulated in the Dastar decision are not directly applicable to the present case and do not preclude the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction to stop the ongoing infringement of the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights and unfair competition.

Clarification of the Order of Execution and Defendants' Obligation to Restrict Access
The Plaintiff also requests this Honorable Court, in the event of granting this Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, to clarify the following order of execution and the Defendants' obligations to comply with the court order:

If the Defendants present evidence (or it is otherwise established) that the complete and accurate segregation of the Plaintiff's materials from their trained Large Language Models (LLMs) and ChatGPT products (including all versions and varieties, such as ChatGPT Turbo, Enterprise, Teams) is impossible without substantial harm to their functioning, the Defendants shall be obligated to take the following actions:

• Temporarily restrict access to the corresponding services and products, including ChatGPT and its varieties, within the territory of the United States of America, in the part where the use of the Plaintiff's content may continue until the final resolution of the dispute by the Court on the merits.
• Such restriction must be implemented in a manner that effectively ceases any further reproduction, adaptation, distribution, or "passing off" of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications posted on the website www.garantplus.kz.

This requirement emphasizes that the responsibility for executing the order lies with the Defendants, and they cannot use the technical difficulties created by their own infringements as a pretext for continuing unlawful activity. If the Defendants cannot guarantee that their AI models will not continue to use or reproduce the Plaintiff's content, then a temporary restriction of access to such "contaminated" models is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the Plaintiff's rights and preserve the status quo until the final resolution of the case. The Plaintiff emphasizes that this restriction pertains only to the part where his rights are being infringed, and not a complete halt to all of the Defendants' activities.

Clear Limitation of Demands: Exclusively to Content Belonging to the Applicant
The Applicant emphasizes that the demands set forth in this notice relate exclusively to the specific content belonging to him (in particular, the copyrighted publications posted on the website www.garantplus.kz). The issue is the inadmissible use, inclusion, indexing, and training based on the Plaintiff's intellectual property without permission. The Plaintiff is not demanding the shutdown, blocking, or prohibition of ChatGPT as a technology, platform, or service as a whole—which is important from a legal and strategic standpoint. However, anticipating the Defendants' actions to prevent this, he asks the Court to consider the fine of one dollar.

Public Policy and Interest
This case transcends an individual dispute and touches upon key public policy questions: can a corporation, wielding advanced AI technology and colossal resources, ignore the rule of law and court orders, relying on technological superiority and the complexity of controlling machine learning models?

Upholding the principle of the rule of law in the context of rapidly developing AI is critically important for protecting the interests of society, authors, innovation, and fair competition. Allowing for the practical impunity of infringements by AI companies creates a dangerous precedent of a legal vacuum where intellectual property ceases to be a protectable category.

The requested injunctive relief (TRO) represents not only the individual protection of the Applicant's rights but also the affirmation of a basic public principle: no technological system, however innovative, is exempt from compliance with the law. Fair competition is only possible based on the lawful use of copyrighted publications.

In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff seeks not compensation, but justice. An injunction is the only way to stop the strategic identity appropriation through AI, curb unfair competition, and protect fundamental intellectual property rights. The Defendants are deliberately blurring the line between originality and imitation, profiting from others' labor and misleading consumers, and this cannot go unpunished. The Court must send a clear signal that technology cannot exist outside the law, ensuring the protection of authors and supporting healthy market competition.

VI. PRAYER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sagidanov Samat Serikovich respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter the following Orders:

1) A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), prohibiting Defendants OpenAI, L.P. (and/or OpenAI, Inc.), Microsoft Corporation, their agents, employees, affiliates, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, from performing the following acts:

1.1. Using, reproducing, adapting, distributing, or otherwise commercially exploiting the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications posted on the website www.garantplus.kz, specifically within their paid and subscription services (ChatGPT Plus, Copilot Pro), if such use constitutes Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, or False Endorsement pursuant to §43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a));

1.2. Continuing to train or fine-tune their Large Language Models, including ChatGPT (and its future versions), on the Plaintiff's publications, if such use causes consumer confusion, creates a false impression of the Plaintiff's consent, or constitutes "passing off" (misrepresenting the content as their own).

In the alternative, to the extent the Court finds it impossible to grant relief covering all of the Plaintiff's publications, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the TRO be limited to:

1.A) The specific articles for which violations are documented in the Complaint and Exhibits, including direct ChatGPT output and Google Analytics data confirming visits from the territory of the United States, namely:

• https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody
• https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-dogovora-perevozki-gruza
• https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/obraztsy-dogovorov-i-inye-dokumenty-v-sud/obrazets-garantijnogo-pisma
• https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/ispolnitelnoe-proizvodstvo/obrazets-administrativnogo-iska-k-chsi-ob-obzhalovanii-bezdejstviya

OR

1.B) At a minimum, the single key article — https://garantplus.kz/publikatsii/vzyskanie/obrazets-iska-o-vzyskanii-upushchennoj-vygody (see Complaint, Violation 6.1.), for which violations are fully documented, including:

• a) Visible copyright notice and the Plaintiff's initials "© Advoakt Sagidanov S.S.";
• b) Reproduction or derivative adaptation confirmed in the ChatGPT output (with ?utm_source=chatgpt.com);
• c) Confirmed visits from the territory of the United States according to Google Analytics data (Exhibit [number]).

For each of the specified URLs, the Plaintiff requests the Court to prohibit the Defendants from copying, reproducing, adapting, distributing, publically displaying, training, fine-tuning, or otherwise utilizing the content in any manner that constitutes Unfair Competition or False Designation of Origin pursuant to §43(a) of the Lanham Act.

2) A Preliminary Injunction, extending the effect of the TRO until a final decision is rendered in this case.

3) Permission for Service by Electronic Mail: The Plaintiff further requests permission to serve a copy of the Court Order upon the Defendants via electronic mail (legal@openai.com and other addresses the Court deems necessary), in addition to other means of service provided by law.

DATED: [Date of Filing]

SIGNATURE:

Samat Serikovich Sagidanov

Plaintiff Pro Se

Note on Potential Defendants' Response and Coercive Fine

Assuming the Defendants were to admit to the Plaintiff's claims at an early stage, arguing to the Court that it is technically impossible to execute the court order from the date of signing.

That is, the Defendant(s) would present arguments to the Court against granting this motion because they cannot execute the court order, as ChatGPT is effectively functioning daily at the expense of the Plaintiff's copyright infringements and thereby extracting profit. Specifically, the Defendants would admit that they daily use, reproduce, adapt, conduct, and continue further training, as well as utilize responses that are derivative of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications. In this regard, the Court is asked to accept this response from the Defendant(s) as an indirect admission of the claim, as the prohibition concerns only copyrighted publications that must have been created by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff emphasizes that the request is for the suspension of the ChatGPT model's operation, and given the high probability of non-compliance with the Court's Order by the Defendants, he additionally requests the imposition of a symbolic fine of 1 (one) US Dollar for each day of non-compliance with the TRO, based on the following grounds:

• First, such a fine ensures the daily recording of the infringement and upholds the principle: infringement is prohibited. A court order is mandatory, and any reference by the Defendants to "technical impossibility" of its implementation effectively means an admission that their product is based on the infringement of the Plaintiff's rights. The minimal fine confirms that the Court is not ignoring the ongoing violations and is recording them daily.
• Second, the balance of interests is clear: good-faith business practice outweighs bad faith. If a small business created original content and a corporation uses it without permission, its "losses" from the execution of a court order are not protectable, as they represent unjust enrichment.
• Third, the symbolic size of the sanction underscores the Plaintiff's good faith: he does not seek to be enriched or "break" the corporation, but merely demands justice and the recognition of a systemic violation. Furthermore, such a mechanism creates a foundation for the future consideration of the case: the daily fine records the continuous infringement, confirming the "contamination" of the Defendants' models with the Plaintiff's copyrighted content and will serve as additional evidence in the main suit.
• Finally, the introduction of even a symbolic sanction serves the public interest and sets a precedent: no AI company can cite technical difficulties as a justification for violating the law, and the rights of small businesses and authors must be protected prioritized over the commercial interests of technological giants.

In this regard, the Plaintiff requests the suspension of ChatGPT's operation, based on the priority of the good-faith business activity of a small business over the bad-faith activity of a large corporation profiting at the expense of a small business's rights.

Additionally, the Plaintiff asks the Court to clarify to the Defendants that the only way to execute the court order is the complete suspension of ChatGPT's operation, due to the objective impossibility of removing the Plaintiff's content from the model, as it is already integrated ("ingested") into its architecture, even if the matter concerns only a single publication.

The only exception could be the sworn testimony of the Defendants' experts and employees in Court about the full execution of the order. However, such testimony must be considered critically and juxtaposed with the Plaintiff's attached technical expert analysis, which indicates the impossibility of selective content deletion and confirms the ongoing infringement.

DECLARATION OF SAMAT SERIKOVICH SAGIDANOV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

PLAINTIFF:
SAGIDANOV SAMAT SERIKOVICH
DEFENDANT:
OPENAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND MICROSOFT CORPORATION
CASE NO.:
_____________________
DOCUMENT:
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
 

I, Samat Serikovich Sagidanov, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

1.      I am the Plaintiff (Plaintiff pro se) in this matter, the owner of the website www.garantplus.kz, and the copyright holder of its materials. I am fully aware of the facts set forth in this Declaration and am competent to testify to them.

2.      This Declaration is submitted in support of the Complaint and the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction for the purpose of immediately halting unfair competition and False Designation of Origin under the Lanham Act (§43(a)).

3. IRREVERSIBILITY OF INFRINGEMENT AND TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF REMOVAL

3.1. Irreversibility of "Ingestion." Defendants have repeatedly demonstrated that their large language models (LLMs) have "ingested" my content at the model architecture level, rather than at an easily removable level. This "ingestion" constitutes a Permanent and Irreversible Fact, and because the infringement is embedded in the architecture, there is no need to re-prove the fact of infringement—it is a continuous infringement.

3.2. Technical Impossibility of Removal. Due to the very nature of LLM architecture, the targeted and selective excision of my content from the trained model is technically infeasible. The only method of remedying the infringement is a full "Restart," Retraining, or deactivation of the entire ChatGPT model and all derivative products of the Defendants.

3.3. Systematic Bad Faith. The fact that the Defendants continue to use my content confirms their systematic bad faith and inability to comply with a Court order for an injunction, other than by completely suspending the operation of their product.

4. PAYWALL IMPLEMENTATION: DIRECT COMMERCIAL HARM

4.1. In view of the continuing unauthorized use of my content by the Defendants—for the purpose of protecting my intellectual labor from the Defendants' ongoing unlawful appropriation and to establish a clear market value for my labor in the face of its illegal use—I implemented a paid subscription model (paywall) for viewing publications on the website www.garantplus.kz on October 09, 2025.

4.2. The implementation of paid access establishes a direct, quantifiable market value for my intellectual labor.

4.3. Since the paywall implementation, the use of my content by the Defendants' products constitutes DIRECT COMMERCIAL SUBSTITUTION of my paid product.

4.4. Thus, the Defendants are actively undermining my new business model by using my work as a direct and free competitor, which results in immediate and demonstrable commercial harm and irreparable harm.

5. CONCLUSION AND DEMAND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

5.1. Based on the foregoing, I assert that an immediate injunction is necessary. The continuing infringement is causing me irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by monetary damages alone.

5.2. I request that the Court determine that the injunction must be executed by suspending the model's functionality due to the technical impossibility of any other method, which aligns with the principle of prioritizing the good-faith business activity of a small business over the bad-faith activity of technological giants.

I affirm that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that the presentation of false information under oath in the United States is a crime.

Date: [_____________]

Place: [_________________]

UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

Samat Serikovich Sagidanov

Plaintiff Pro Se

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Plaintiff:         Sagidanov Samat Serikovich

Legal and mailing address: 010000, Astana, Baraeva st. 13 apt. 135, Kazakhstan

Mobile: +7-702-847-80-20 (WhatsApp)

Email: garantplus.kz@mail.ru

(hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, acting pro se, who engages in business activities based on providing legal services), Pro Se

Defendant:     OpenAI Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the defendant and/or OpenAI, Inc.)

Legal address: 3180 18th Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, United States

Website: https://www.openai.com

Principal business: research and development in the field of artificial intelligence, including language models (GPT), multimodal models (e.g., ChatGPT, DALL·E), Codex, OpenAI API, and other products.

Defendant:     Microsoft Corporation

Legal address: 555 California St, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94104, United States

Website: https://www.microsoft.com

Phone: +1 (800) 642-7676

Principal business: provision of software, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence products and services, including Microsoft Azure and integration of AI-related solutions in partnership with OpenAI.

Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause Regarding Contempt of Court and Memorandum in Support

   Plaintiff, Samat Serikovich Sagidanov, hereby, in accordance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's general authority to enforce its orders, moves for an Order to Show Cause regarding contempt of court against Defendants, OpenAI Limited Partnership (and/or OpenAI, Inc.) and Microsoft Corporation (hereinafter, "Defendants").

    The Plaintiff asks the Court to order the Defendants to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for their failure to comply with the Court's Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION

I. INTRODUCTION

This Motion is filed in response to the Defendants' continued non-compliance with a valid court order.

This Honorable Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which, among other things, expressly prohibited Defendants from:

• Using, reproducing, adapting, distributing, publicly displaying, or otherwise exploiting the copyrighted publications of Sagidanov Samat Serikovich, published on the website www.garantplus.kz, in a manner that constitutes unfair competition, false designation of origin, or false endorsement under §43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)).
• Continuing to train or fine-tune their large-scale language models, including ChatGPT (and its future versions, such as ChatGPT 5), using the specified copyrighted publications of Sagidanov Samat Serikovich, published on the website www.garantplus.kz, if such use leads to misleading users, creating a false endorsement, or constitutes "passing off" of the Plaintiff's content.
• Using or providing users with answers or content that reproduces, adapts, or is derivative of the specified copyrighted publications of Sagidanov Samat Serikovich, published on the website www.garantplus.kz, in a manner that infringes the Plaintiff's rights regarding unfair competition, including "passing off", false designation of origin, or false endorsement.

As will be detailed below, the Defendants not only failed to cease the specified prohibited actions but, despite a clear court order and a direct clarification from the Plaintiff, continued them, demonstrating a complete disregard for the authority of the Court.

The Plaintiff, residing in the city of Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan, and therefore unable to participate in the court hearing in person (offline), files this Motion with deep respect for the Court and its authority.

The purpose is to ensure the uninterrupted operation, comprehensiveness, and objectivity of the civil case review, as well as the effective enforcement of the court order, given the need for a reliable legal enforcement mechanism in a cross-border dispute.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

To establish contempt of court, the Plaintiff must prove that: a valid and clear court order exists; the Defendants had knowledge of the order; and the Defendants violated the order (see, e.g., F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999)). The evidence must be "clear and convincing."

III. DEFENDANTS' VIOLATION OF THE COURT ORDER

1.       Valid and Clear Order: The Court's TRO Order is valid, lawful, and sufficiently clear for the Defendants to understand what is required of them. It directly prohibits specific actions related to the use of the Plaintiff's content and the functioning of their AI models.

2.      Defendants' Knowledge of the Order: Defendants OpenAI Limited Partnership and Microsoft Corporation were properly notified of the Court Order directly in Court after its announcement. Also, a copy of the Order was sent to the Defendants by email to legal@openai.com.

In addition, after receiving the court order, the Plaintiff also additionally sent the Defendants a clarification on the procedure for executing the court order and the need for fair competition by prohibiting the use of his publications in products to the email legal@openai.com.

The Defendants, being large technology corporations with extensive legal departments, cannot reasonably claim that they were unaware of the content and binding force of this Order.

3.      Violation of the Order: Since the issuance of the TRO, the defendants have not taken sufficient measures to fully and effectively cease the prohibited actions, demonstrating a lack of good faith and reasonableness in decision-making, which is confirmed by their previous actions and the continued use of the plaintiff's content.

Previously, after receiving the plaintiff's claims, the defendants introduced temporary restrictions, including stopping the provision of direct links to the plaintiff's website (www.garantplus.kz) through ChatGPT, but subsequently resumed or continued the violations, which served as the basis for this lawsuit.

Moreover, the plaintiff's content, consisting of 1159 publications, is embedded in the parameters of the defendants' AI models, including ChatGPT, as confirmed by technical expertise (Exhibit No. 101).

Linguistic expertise (Exhibit No. 100) establishes that ChatGPT's answers contain rephrased fragments of the plaintiff's publications, despite the introduced restrictions, such as link filtering.

These restrictions only conceal the explicit use of the content but do not eliminate it, allowing the defendants to continue profiting from the plaintiff's copyrighted content, which constitutes unfair competition in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act.

Thus, the defendants knowingly violate the TRO by using the embedded plaintiff's content, which undermines his business model and the trademark "Legal Center Garant Plus."

New notarized screenshots (Exhibits No. 102–105) confirm the continued use of the content after the TRO, demonstrating clear contempt of court.

Evidence of Contempt:

1.      Linguistic expertise (Exhibit No. 100) reveals the semantic and stylistic similarity of ChatGPT's answers to the plaintiff's publications, which indicates their use even after filtering.

2.      Technical expertise (Exhibit No. 101) confirms that the plaintiff's content is embedded in the parameters of the AI models, and filtering does not eliminate its influence, as complete removal requires retraining the models, which the defendants have not undertaken.

3.      New screenshots (Exhibits No. 102–105) demonstrate that ChatGPT continues to generate answers based on the plaintiff's content, despite the TRO.

4.      Correspondence (Exhibit No. 32) confirms that the defendants were aware of the violations before and after the TRO but did not stop them completely.

Inadequacy of Defendants' Measures:

The filters introduced by the defendants and the fine-tuning of the models do not eliminate the violations, as the plaintiff's content remains embedded in the model parameters.

Technical expertise (Exhibit No. 101) establishes that new AI models, such as GPT-5, inherit data from older models, continuing unfair competition. This makes filtering merely an attempt to conceal violations, not to comply with the TRO, which is a conscious contempt of court.

In turn, the Coercive Fines presented by the plaintiff: for daily coercive fines of $1 (one US dollar) for each day of non-compliance, the Defendants are effectively allowed to use their products with the acknowledgment of the court order violation after its signing.

Thus, the reason for filing this motion is to hold the defendants accountable without actually suspending their products.

These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:

o Defendant OpenAI's Products:

• ChatGPT: All current versions (ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4, ChatGPT 4o) and, presumably, all future versions (e.g., ChatGPT 5), if they are already in development and trained on "contaminated" data or can reproduce it, continue to function and provide users with answers that reproduce, adapt, or are derivative of the Plaintiff's copyrighted publications.
• DALL-E, Sora: models continue to operate, despite the potential use of "contaminated" text data or concepts obtained from LLMs that violate the order.
• OpenAI API (all GPT models, DALL-E, etc.): Access to the underlying models (e.g., GPT-3, GPT-4), provided through the API to third-party developers, continues, despite these models being "contaminated" or their use potentially leading to violations.

o Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Products (integrating OpenAI technologies):

• Microsoft Copilot (formerly Bing Chat / Copilot in Bing/Edge): The functionality of using answers in the Bing search engine and the Edge browser continues to operate.
• Microsoft 365 Copilot: All integrations into Microsoft 365 applications (Copilot in Word, Copilot in Excel, Copilot in PowerPoint, Copilot in Outlook, Copilot in Teams, as well as any other Copilot functions integrated into other Microsoft 365 products) continue to function.
• GitHub Copilot: The functions of using code and text comments continue to operate.
• Azure OpenAI Service: The cloud service that provides Microsoft clients with access to OpenAI models continues to function.
• Any other internal or external Microsoft products and services: All Microsoft products and services that use OpenAI technologies or receive data from "contaminated" models, and which potentially may violate the provisions of the court order, continue to operate.

Thus, the above-mentioned products continue to operate, thereby continuing unfair competition against the Plaintiff even after the court order was signed.

Inability or Refusal to Effectively Comply: The Defendants, possessing vast technical and financial resources, were unable, or rather, in the plaintiff's opinion, unwilling to implement effective measures for full compliance with the Order. As the Plaintiff knows, effective "unlearning" of specific content from large-scale language models like ChatGPT is an extremely difficult or unresolved technical task. Any "output filters" claimed by the Defendants have obviously been insufficient to guarantee the elimination of violations, which indicates their inability or conscious unwillingness to fully comply with the Court's Order without stricter measures.

Conscious Non-Compliance: The Defendants' actions after receiving the Order demonstrate either serious incompetence in complying with court orders or a conscious disregard for them, which is a direct contempt of the Court and its authority.

The Plaintiff reserves the right to submit evidence of violations (e.g., new screenshots, notarized testimonies) as they are discovered before the date of the Court's consideration of this Motion.

The Plaintiff draws the Court's attention to the fact that the draft of this motion was sent before the lawsuit was filed with the Court with the aim of timely preparing the defendants for the upcoming restrictions. However, knowing for a fact about the possible restrictions before the lawsuit was filed with the Court, the defendants did not take due measures to comply with the Court Order.

This conclusion is confirmed by the attached screenshot of this motion being sent to the defendants before the lawsuit was filed with the Court to the email: legal@openai.com.

IV. SANCTIONS REQUESTED

In connection with the contempt of court, the Plaintiff asks the Court to apply the following sanctions to the Defendants:

1.       Coercive Fines: Impose daily coercive fines of $1 (one US dollar) for each day of non-compliance on the Defendants, jointly and severally, for each day they continue to violate the Court's TRO Order, until full and confirmed compliance. The purpose of these fines is to confirm in Court the non-compliance with the Court Order, not to stop the business activities of the Defendants.

2.      Additional Measures: Consider any other measures that the Court deems necessary to ensure compliance with its Order and restore the integrity of the judicial process.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Samat Serikovich Sagidanov respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an Order to Show Cause for contempt of court against the Defendants and apply appropriate sanctions to them for their non-compliance with the Court's Temporary Restraining Order.

The Plaintiff based and bases all his actions on the principles of fair competition and his actions are not aimed at prohibiting fair competition from the defendants, which is confirmed by the insignificant amount of the fine.

Dated:

Sincerely,

Samat Serikovich Sagidanov

[Your address]

[Your phone number]

Plaintiff Pro Se