< Back to latest news & events

Retail Scanner

Artificial intelligence is changing retail, will it change trade mark law?

August 2019

A look at things to come as technology evolves. Most retailers accept that the future of retail lies to a degree in artificial intelligence (AI), whether that be improved efficiencies in supply chain, better prediction of consumer trends, or improved consumer interaction. AI is already making an impact, with the increased use of chatbots, predictive purchasing applications, and the introduction of robotic shopping assistants.

However, the future of retail could be turned on its head, with a move from the traditional ‘shopping then shipping’ model to that of a ‘shipping then shopping’ model with consumers increasingly accepting the ability of AI applications to predict their shopping needs and placing orders on their behalf. Does this change in the information available to consumers in their purchasing decisions, and indeed the reduction of the ‘human component’ in the purchasing of product, mean that trade mark law will have to change?

In a recent article, HGF considered some of the latest developments in AI, their application to retailing, and how potentially these applications could change trade mark law.

Following the impact of this article, HGF’s Lee Curtis was invited to join a trade mark panel at a conference held by The United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’) on 31st January 2019 entitled “Artificial Intelligence: Intellectual Property Policy Considerations”. The panel was also made up of in-house counsel from several big names in the world of retail and AI, including Amazon.com, Inc., Microsoft Corp and Satalia.

The trade mark panel discussion raised more questions than it answered. Some of the main questions that were considered by the panel were:

  • How will AI impact on the way products are purchased, which after all is the basis of trade mark law?
  • Are some of the buzzwords of trade mark law now simply redundant, for example concepts such as ‘average consumer’, ‘likelihood of confusion’, ‘imperfect recollection’ and the slurring of trade marks.
  • Can AI be confused? Who is liable when an AI assistant purchases an infringing product?
  • Can AI help in the fight against infringers and counterfeiters?

A video recording of the trade mark panel can be watched here

From a retail perspective, as more applications of AI are introduced to the consumer shopping experience, the most important considerations that need to be taken into account are:

  • Liability of the provider of the AI assistant. For retailers this is a crucial issue as they are likely to be the provider. EU trade mark case law has provided some guidance with regards liability in relation to online marketplaces, the case of the L’Oreal vs. eBay decision, and keyword advertising, in the case of the Google France vs Louis Vuitton Malletier SA. Both these decisions suggest that an AI assistant provider would not be liable if sufficient take down procedures were introduced to remove infringing product from an AI ‘space’;
  • AI should also be used to the maximum not only as part of the assistant but also in anti-counterfeiting measures to reduce any liability to the retailer and AI assistant provider;
  • Retailers will have to clear with consumers over what products are being considered for purchase by any AI assistant to build ‘brand trust’ in the AI assistant.

Latest updates

Agritech Thymes: Arusha Protocol Enters into Force

Since being introduced in July 2015, the Arusha protocol for the protection of novel plant varieties in Africa has finally entered into force on the 24th November 2024, after ratification …

Read article

HGF office closures in December 2024 and January 2025

Please note that our offices will be closed for business in accordance with national holidays on the following dates.  Please plan accordingly and provide us with your instructions in advance …

Read article

Central Division takes pragmatic approach to late-filed submissions and revokes VMR’s patent for lack of inventive step

In Njoy v VMR (UPC_CFI_308/2023), the Paris Central Division confirmed that the “front loaded” provisions of the UPC should be interpreted in line with the principles of proportionality and procedural …

Read article

Celebrating Success – Director Promotions

We are proud to announce that 7 of our team have been promoted to director effective from 1 December 2024! These promotions recognise the outstanding contributions demonstrated by these individuals, who …

Read article

G2/24: A new referral to the Enlarged Board seeks to clarify whether a third party who intervened during appeal proceedings can acquire full appellant status

In the referring decision, T1286/23, the Board of Appeal referred the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: After the withdrawal of all appeals, may the proceedings be continued …

Read article

UPC first FRAND judgment results in injunction against OPPO

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd & anor UPC_CFI_210/2023 – Mannheim Local Division (Tochtermann, Böttcher, Brinkman & Loibner) – 22 November 2024. The UPC issued its …

Read article