AI-Generated Search Summaries and Trade Marks: Berlin Court Refuses Injunction over Perfume “Dupes”

Key Takeaways

• Berlin court says AI summaries aren't trademark use by search engine
• Injunction denied; operator only provides technical facilitation, not commercial communication
• Decision limited to Germany; no EU-wide injunction possible
• Sponsored links above AI overview don't create trademark liability
• Ruling may shape future AI search trademark disputes across Europe

Pulse Analysis

The Berlin decision arrives at a moment when generative AI is reshaping the search landscape. Traditional trademark law, anchored in the notion of "use" within commercial communication, now confronts AI‑crafted snippets that blend third‑party data into a single, polished answer. By classifying the AI overview as a functional extension of the search result rather than original advertising, the court reaffirmed the principle that merely providing the technical infrastructure for others' marks does not constitute use. This interpretation aligns with earlier CJEU precedents such as Google France and Louboutin, extending their reach into AI‑driven interfaces.

For platform operators, the judgment offers a degree of certainty but also a warning. While the court found no decisive influence over the specific AI output, it noted that the platform’s design choices—ranking algorithms, prompt engineering, and the placement of sponsored content—could tip the balance toward commercial use in future cases. The distinction drawn from the Ortlieb I ruling underscores that when a service actively curates or promotes products within its own ecosystem, trademark liability may arise. Companies deploying AI‑enhanced search must therefore document the neutrality of their source‑selection mechanisms and consider clear disclosures to mitigate perceived endorsement.

Trademark owners, meanwhile, will need to recalibrate enforcement strategies. Rather than targeting the search engine, they may focus on the actual third‑party websites that are summarised or linked, where the trademark is directly displayed. The German court’s limited jurisdiction also hints at a fragmented European landscape; similar cases in other member states could yield divergent outcomes, prompting the EU to consider harmonised guidance. As AI answer boxes become more prevalent, the legal line between facilitation and commercial exploitation will be tested repeatedly, making proactive compliance and vigilant monitoring essential for both brands and platform providers.