14 Jan Complete reliance on AI is not the solution
Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised our lives significantly. In many professions, tools such as ChatGPT and Copilot have transformed the way we perform our jobs. Thanks to AI, we can access information faster and receive assistance with various tasks, allowing us to work more efficiently and effectively.
But what happens when we do not consider AI as a mere assistant and allow it to do the job directly?
In the industrial property sector, such a case has recently arisen. Regarding opposition proceedings against the registration of a trademark before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP).
The UK company Penguin Books Limited filed an opposition before the BOIP against the registration of the trademark “ARTPENGUIN” applied for by Tom Grashof. This trade mark was applied for, inter alia, paper, cardboard and other stationery materials in class 16 of the International Trademark Classification. Penguin Books Limited based its opposition on several EU trademarks “PENGUIN”, also registered in class 16, and claimed the reputation of these earlier rights.
In response to the opposition filed by Penguin Books Limited, the applicant submitted arguments drafted by ChatGPT, which consisted of the following:
- There is no visual similarity between the signs due to differences in the graphic style of the marks. The mark applied for is distinguished by a modern design, whereas the opposing mark has a more traditional design.
- There are differences in the word element ‘ART’ in the mark applied for, so that there is no phonetic similarity either.
- Due to differences in the respective graphs, there is no conceptual similarity.
However, ChatGPT did not address the comparison between the goods. Moreover, ChatGPT included in its assessment a word mark, ‘PENGUIN BOOKS’, which was not part of the opposition.
The BOIP, after examining the case with the evidence before it, found that there was a likelihood of confusion and therefore upheld the opposition on the basis of:
- The products are similar. It is recalled that ChatGPT did not submit arguments regarding the comparison between the products and therefore did not contest their similarity.
- The marks compared are visually and phonetically similar, as they share the element ‘PENGUIN’. The diverging elements, such as ‘ART-‘ and the differences in the graphics, are not sufficient to compensate for the similarities between the signs.
- Conceptually, the marks are similar in that they all contain the name ‘PENGUIN’ and a graphic of a penguin.
As this case shows, AI offers countless possibilities, but it cannot yet replace certain work that requires a human component. Although the opposition could have anyway been upheld due to the similarities between the signs and the goods, the arguments presented by ChatGPT were weak and lacked all the necessary assessments when comparing two trade marks.
All in all, it is certainly necessary to review and complement all work produced by AI. Last, but not least, we can still safely confirm that it is always advisable to consult a professional for real and effective advice.
Foto de Igor Omilaev a Unsplash.