AI-generated search summaries and trade marks: Berlin court refuses injunction over perfume “dupes”

WISECODE Take

This Berlin court ruling highlights a common misunderstanding among business owners regarding the concept of intellectual property "use" in the era of generative AI. In my view, this is akin to information disclosure and liability in financial investments. The Regional Court of Berlin II's decision on June 1, 2026, stated that a search engine operator providing AI-generated summaries mentioning "perfume dupes" does not constitute "trademark use" under Article 9 EUTMR, as the AI merely aggregates third-party content, not the operator's own commercial communication. This is similar to a financial platform aggregating market information, where liability for erroneous information needs clarification. For business owners, this presents a new challenge for brands in the digital world: AI can inadvertently become a "promotional channel" for counterfeits, yet making it difficult for rights holders to hold platforms accountable. When consumers search for "perfume dupes" via AI and receive information related to brand names, this is undoubtedly a potential dilution of brand value, which traditional direct "use" judgments in trademark law may struggle to address. Therefore, I suggest that business owners should, first, actively monitor the presentation of their brand names in AI search summaries, especially content related to counterfeits or alternatives; and second, re-evaluate whether their existing trademark portfolio is comprehensive enough to cope with the complexity of information flow in the AI era. Under the AI wave, brand protection is no longer merely a legal battle but an information war; early strategic planning is crucial to solidify brand value. Zhidian offers professional trademark monitoring services to help business owners track their brand's dynamics in the digital world.