legalguruindia.com

Tag: AI and Intellectual Property

  • Navigating The AI Revolution In IPR Field

    The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI Revolution) is reshaping the landscape of creativity and intellectual property in unprecedented ways. From AI-generated trademarks to automated content creation, businesses and creators are encountering complex legal questions that challenge traditional notions of originality, authorship, and ownership. In India, where intellectual property (IP) law is still evolving to accommodate technological advances, this shift presents both opportunities and risks for innovators, companies, and legal practitioners alike.

    Platforms like TMWala help individuals and businesses to safeguard their intellectual property in this digital era. 

    The Emergence Of AI-Generated Trademarks

    Over the past decade, there has been a noticeable shift toward non-traditional trademarks. Businesses are increasingly experimenting with marks that appeal to multiple senses, including visual, auditory, and tactile elements. Motion marks, sound marks, and image-based trademarks are gaining recognition as innovative tools to engage consumers.

    AI technologies can now generate logos, brand names, and other trademarked assets with little to no human intervention. While this has dramatically increased efficiency and creativity, it introduces a new challenge: determining originality. AI systems are trained on existing data, meaning they may inadvertently reproduce elements of previously registered trademarks. The result is an elevated risk of unintentional infringement, making it difficult to ascertain whether an AI-generated mark is truly original or a derivative work.

    Ownership And Authorship

    A central challenge in AI-generated trademarks is the question of ownership. Indian law requires that a trademark be owned by a person, be it an individual, a company, a partnership, or another legal entity. AI systems, however, do not have legal personality and cannot hold property rights. This leaves open the question of whether the owner of an AI-generated mark is the developer of the AI, the user who inputs prompts, or the entity that commissions the work.

    Industry practice generally leans toward attributing ownership to the human user or commissioning party, provided there is demonstrable human involvement in shaping or approving the trademark. Courts are likely to recognize ownership when a human’s creative input is substantial enough to influence the final output. Evidence such as design briefs, prompt histories, or documented edits can be critical in establishing such claims.

    This hybrid approach aligns with international best practices and seeks to strike a balance: it allows AI to facilitate creativity while ensuring the integrity of the trademark system and safeguarding against “authorless” marks that could flood the market.

    AI And Copyright: The Ani vs. OpenAI Case

    The questions surrounding AI-generated trademarks are mirrored in copyright disputes involving AI-created content. A landmark case currently unfolding in India is the lawsuit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT. ANI alleges that OpenAI used its proprietary news articles to train ChatGPT without permission, resulting in AI-generated content that sometimes falsely attributes information to ANI.

    Before approaching the courts, ANI offered OpenAI a licensing arrangement in October 2024, which the company declined. ANI then filed a suit for copyright infringement and damages. In November 2024, the Delhi High Court issued a summons to OpenAI but declined to grant an interim injunction against ChatGPT’s operations. To assist in resolving the case, the court appointed two legal experts, Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, an IP law expert, and Dr. Arul George Scaria, a copyright scholar, to analyse how Indian law applies to AI training.

    The case raises several key legal questions:

    1. Does using copyrighted news content to train an AI model and generate output constitute copyright infringement?
    2. Can such use be justified under the doctrine of “fair dealing” in Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957?
    3. Does the Delhi High Court have jurisdiction over a foreign entity like OpenAI, given that the servers are located outside India, while the alleged harm occurs within the country?

    ANI contends that OpenAI’s use of its content, without permission, constitutes unauthorized exploitation of its intellectual property. The organization emphasizes that public availability does not equate to a waiver of rights. ANI also points to the risk of misinformation and reputational damage when ChatGPT attributes false information to its agency.

    OpenAI, on the other hand, asserts that its use of publicly available data is legal, that it does not store or copy ANI content, and that its operations are transparent. It further challenged the jurisdiction of Indian courts over its foreign servers.

    The Role Of Fair Dealing in the AI Revolution

    The concept of fair dealing under Section 52 provides certain exceptions to copyright infringement, such as use for research, criticism, review, or reporting current events. Central to these exceptions is the principle of “transformative use,” which requires that a new work add significant expression, meaning, or purpose beyond the original work. Mere replication or commercial use of copyrighted material, even in a digital format, is insufficient to qualify as fair dealing.

    The Delhi High Court has previously reinforced this principle in multiple cases:

    • In Digital Collectibles Pte Ltd v. Galactus Funware Technology Pvt Ltd (2023), the court emphasized that transformative use must alter the original work’s character or purpose, rather than simply reproduce it.
    • In Akuate Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. (2013), the court held that facts and public information cannot be monopolized, even when presented in a creative format.

    In applying these principles, the court in the ANI case will examine four factors: the purpose and character of the AI use, the nature of the original work, the amount of material used, and the potential market impact. Given the commercial scale and automated nature of AI content generation, it is uncertain whether fair dealing will shield OpenAI’s activities under the current statutory framework.

    Reforming Indian Intellectual Property Law

    The ANI vs. OpenAI dispute highlights the urgent need to adapt India’s IP laws to the realities of AI. Policymakers and legal experts are increasingly calling for reforms that address AI-generated works, including:

    1. Defining Ownership and Authorship: Clarifying the legal status of AI-generated content and establishing guidelines for attributing ownership to human contributors.
    2. Updating Fair Use Provisions: Expanding fair dealing exceptions to account for transformative AI uses while maintaining protections for original creators.
    3. Addressing AI-Generated Trademarks: Implementing standards for evaluating originality, preventing inadvertent infringement, and ensuring human oversight in trademark applications.
    4. International Harmonization: Aligning Indian IP laws with global best practices to facilitate cross-border AI innovation and reduce jurisdictional disputes.

    Practical Measures For Businesses

    In the meantime, businesses leveraging AI for branding and content creation should adopt robust risk management practices:

    • Document all human involvement in AI-generated creations.
    • Conduct thorough trademark and copyright searches to avoid potential infringement.
    • Obtain licensing agreements for training data, where feasible.
    • Develop internal policies for the ethical use of AI in creative processes.

    TMWala can help businesses by combining legal compliance with strategic oversight, and businesses can benefit from AI’s efficiency and creativity while minimizing exposure to costly disputes.

    Conclusion

    Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic concept; it is actively shaping the world of intellectual property in India. From generating trademarks to producing news content, AI challenges traditional frameworks of originality, authorship, and ownership. Cases like ANI vs. OpenAI illustrate the legal uncertainties and ethical dilemmas emerging from these technological shifts.

    As Indian IP law evolves, adopting hybrid approaches that recognize human contribution while accommodating AI’s capabilities will be essential. Clear legislative guidance, coupled with responsible corporate practices, can ensure that innovation thrives without undermining the credibility and protection of India’s intellectual property system. The future of AI and IP law will depend on a careful balance between fostering creativity and upholding legal and ethical standards, and an opportunity for India to set a global precedent in the governance of AI-generated works.

    FAQs

    1. What is an AI-generated trademark?
      A trademark created by AI, like logos or brand names.
    2. Can AI own a trademark in India?
      No. Only humans or legal entities can own trademarks.
    3. Who owns an AI-generated mark?
      Usually, the human user or the commissioning party provides proof of creative input.
    4. What is the ANI vs. OpenAI case?
      ANI sued OpenAI for using its news to train ChatGPT without permission.
    5. What is fair dealing?
      A legal exception allowing limited use of copyrighted work for research, review, or reporting.
    6. Does AI content qualify as fair dealing?
      Only if it transforms the original work, not just copies it.
    7. What challenges do AI trademarks bring?
      Issues with originality, infringement, and ownership clarity.
    8. How is India adapting IP laws for AI?
      By defining ownership, updating fair use, and regulating AI-generated marks.
    9. How can businesses protect themselves?
      Document human input, check IP rights, use licensed data, and set ethical AI policies.
    10. Why is AI changing IP law?
      It challenges traditional rules of authorship, originality, and ownership.

  • Why ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok Are Facing Trademark Hurdles in India

    INTRODUCTION

    In India, trademark rights operate on the principle of “first to use” rather than “first to file.” This means that the rights to a trademark are granted to the party who can prove prior use in the market, regardless of who applies first. This fundamental rule has become particularly significant in recent cases involving major AI-based platforms attempting to register trademarks under Class 9 of the Trademark classification.

    Global tech giants like ChatGPT, Gemini AI, and Grok have recently encountered legal hurdles while seeking trademark protection in India. Despite their international recognition, these platforms are facing opposition due to earlier trademark claims by local businesses. In this article, we will delve into the scope of Class 9 under the Trademark classification, explore the specific challenges these companies face, and analyse why India’s “prior user” principle creates roadblocks for some of the world’s most prominent AI brands.

    CLASS 9 OF NICE CLASSIFICATION

    Class 9 is a crucial trademark category for technology-driven goods and services. It encompasses various products, including AI software, downloadable and cloud-based applications, data processing systems, and various other digital technologies. For startups and tech companies, securing trademark protection under Class 9 is essential to safeguard their AI innovations, digital products, and brand identity, especially in India’s rapidly evolving and highly competitive tech landscape.

    THE AI-BASED PLATFORM VS. PRIOR USER

    1. GOOGLE’S GEMINI VS. SUN TV’S GEMINI TV

    Google’s attempt to register the trademark “Gemini” for its AI platform in India has been formally opposed by Sun TV Network, the owner of the longstanding Gemini TV brand (in use since 1995 in Class 35).

    Despite operating in different sectors, AI software versus television broadcasting Trade Marks Registry flagged a strong possibility of consumer confusion, particularly due to phonetic similarities and visual resemblance.

    Key legal provisions invoked include:

    • Section 11(1): Refusal on grounds of likely confusion with a pre-existing mark
    • Section 9(1)(b): Marks lacking distinctiveness or potentially misleading consumers

    2. OPENAI’S CHATGPT VS. FLAXXI AI

    OpenAI’s application to protect the “ChatGPT” trademark in India is currently opposed by Flaxxi AI, a Bengaluru-based startup that claims usage of the name since 2022 for its educational AI platform developed with IIT Jammu.

    Flaxxi argues that their prior use and accrued goodwill should bar OpenAI from registering the same name, given India’s strict “first use” rule.

    3. xAI’S GROK VS. GROKE TECHNOLOGIES

    Elon Musk’s xAI is facing opposition from Groke Technologies, a Finnish marine software firm that holds the “Grok” trademark under Class 9 in several jurisdictions, including Finland. xAI contends that the brands serve distinct markets and have coexisted without issues in countries like Finland and South Korea.

    Separately, in the U.S., a startup named Bizly alleges prior rights to “Grok,” claiming they filed for the mark in 2021. They contend that Musk’s use disrupted funding and triggered confusion, even though Bizly’s app was still in beta and not widely launched.

    4. DEEPSEEK AI VS. MULTIPLE LOCAL APPLICANTS

    India’s DeepSeek AI has become entangled in trademark filings contested by multiple parties, indicating a potentially complex dispute over ownership of the “Deep Seek” name under Class 9.

    WHY ARE THESE CASES SIGNIFICANT?

    • India’s “First-to-Use” Principle: Trademark rights are grounded in actual prior use in India, rather than global recognition.
    • High Conflict in Class 9: AI platforms fall under Class 9, a category rife with overlapping names and contested claims.
    • Consumer Confusion Threshold: Even when operating in different industries, names that sound alike or share brand design elements may be refused or opposed based on Section 11 and Section 9 grounds.

    CASE STATUS & LATEST UPDATES

    • Gemini: Sun TV’s prior use (dating back to 1995) gives it a strong ground. Google’s opposition proceedings are ongoing.
    • ChatGPT: Flaxxi AI’s claim of longstanding local usage gives it legal weight; OpenAI’s response is underway.
    • Grok: Trademark opposition is active, with Groke Technologies raising a formal opposition in India.xAI continues to defend its position.
    • DeepSeek: Multiple overlapping applications indicate a contested process that may take time to resolve.

    CONCLUSION

    The ongoing trademark disputes involving leading AI platforms like Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, xAI’s Grok, and DeepSeek AI underscore the complexities of navigating intellectual property law in India’s dynamic digital economy. These cases highlight how India’s “Prior User” doctrine plays a pivotal role in determining trademark rightsoften giving local businesses a legal advantage over globally established tech giants. The ongoing trademark disputes involving leading AI platforms like Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, xAI’s Grok, and DeepSeek AI underscore the complexities of navigating intellectual property law in India’s dynamic digital economy. These cases highlight how India’s “Prior User” doctrine plays a pivotal role in determining trademark rightsoften giving local businesses a legal advantage over globally established tech giants.

    As AI continues to evolve and expand, especially within India’s thriving technology sector, securing early trademark protection under the appropriate class, particularly Class 9, is more critical than ever. Companies, both domestic and international, must adopt proactive trademark strategies that consider not only global branding but also local market presence and existing rights holders.

    These high-profile cases serve as a reminder that in India, brand value is not solely determined by global reputation or innovation it is also grounded in timely, lawful, and strategic use within the local market.