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.