They're squarely in the zone with knockoff products deliberately aping the branding of the real thing.
"Dr Peppy isn't a trick to piggyback on Dr Pepper, it's a legally distinct brand!" might give you enough of a fig leaf in court with a good lawyer, but it's very obvious what kind of company you're running to anybody paying attention.
Glover sued and won.
There are any number of human-sounding movie AI's, but apparently only one whose actor has specifically and repeatedly rejected this association.
Does he keep getting into ethical hot water because he's a reckless fool, or because he doesn't really care about ethics at all, despite all the theatre?
Do you think OpenAI did something similar here? In your case there is some expectation from the first movie, OpenAI doesn't have something similar. I'm really for people getting credit for their work/assets and I would be on the individual's side against the bigtech, but I think this case OpenAI and SJ have at hand already is on the path to set a wrong precedent, regardless of if any and which of them wins.
Of the films I've seen anyway.
Typical sleazy open AI / Sam Altman behaviour, AFAICS.