NEWS

AI-driven trademark abuse: Why “register first, use later” is becoming riskier

 Contents

Trademark Blocking with AI: A New Risk

AI tools are not only changing marketing, product development and research. They are also creating new risks in trademark law. A recent article by Legal Tribune Online reports an increase since mid-2025 in trademark applications where applicants apparently do not intend to use the marks themselves, but rather to put other market participants under pressure or block them.

The principle is reminiscent of earlier “domain grabbing”: a sign is already being used in the market but has not yet been registered as a trademark. Third parties identify this gap, register the sign and may then try to prevent the actual users from continuing to use it.

Why AI Makes the Problem More Serious

In the past, finding unregistered but commercially used signs required considerable manual research. Today, AI-supported tools and automated searches can identify such gaps much faster. This makes it easier to systematically search for names and signs that are commercially relevant but not yet protected in the trademark register.

This is particularly relevant for companies, agencies, online sellers and creators using product names, campaign names, shop names or format titles that have not yet been secured as trademarks.

Platforms as Risk Multipliers

The situation becomes especially critical on online marketplaces such as Amazon or eBay. Anyone listed as a trademark owner in the register may be able to use platform mechanisms to take action against third-party listings very quickly. According to LTO, such blocking measures can be automated and highly effective, without the platform always examining the full history of the trademark in detail.

This means that even if a company used a sign earlier, a platform suspension can initially have serious economic consequences. By the time an unjustified block is clarified, lost sales, reduced visibility and ranking damage may already have occurred.

Legal Background

Bad-faith trademark applications are generally excluded from registration under Section 8(2) No. 14 of the German Trademark Act. The German Patent and Trade Mark Office examines suspected cases where there are indications of bad faith. However, if no such indications are detected, the application process may continue and ultimately result in registration.

German trademark law also recognises protection through use, for example in the case of unregistered trademarks or company identifiers. In practice, however, this may not provide immediate relief on platforms if automated blocking systems primarily rely on the trademark register entry.

What Businesses Should Take Away

Trademark strategy is not only an issue for large corporations. Companies launching new products, campaigns, platform shops or digital services should assess early which signs are commercially relevant.

This includes in particular:

  • product names and series names
  • shop and platform names
  • campaign and project names
  • company identifiers and sub-brands
  • names of digital services, apps or creator formats

Early trademark registration can help reduce later conflicts and blocking risks. It does not replace a strategic legal assessment, but it can be an important element in securing a company’s market position.

To the Point

AI tools can make it easier to identify unprotected but actively used signs in the market.

  • Bad-faith trademark applications can put businesses under pressure.
  • Platforms such as Amazon or eBay may provide blocking mechanisms that can quickly have economic consequences.
  • Early trademark searches and trademark registrations are becoming even more important.
  • Businesses should not wait until a conflict arises before protecting commercially relevant signs.

 

Source: Legal Tribune Online, „Was tun gegen Markenmissbrauch mit KI-Tools?“, 06.05.2026.

 

Our conclusion

Anyone using names, brands or signs commercially should not postpone legal protection. A forward-looking trademark strategy helps reducing vulnerabilities and preserve the ability to act.

SimonGraeser supports you with trademark searches, trademark applications, trademark strategy and defence against abusive trademark attacks.

MORE NEWS

Munich Regional Court I: Google must answer for false AI responses

Munich Regional Court I prohibited Google from further disseminating false statements from an “AI Overview”. The AI response was attributed to the search engine operator as its own statement.
Trademark Law

BGH “Mehmet Efendi”: No exhaustion from placing goods on the market in Turkey – association agreement does not extend the EEA

The BGH confirms: Placing EU trade mark goods on the market in Turkey does not trigger exhaustion within the EEA. The EEC–Turkey association framework does not extend the territorial scope of exhaustion; parallel imports into the EEA can be prohibited without the proprietor’s consent.
Trademark Law

BGH “LA BIOSTHETIQUE”: German courts have jurisdiction for targeted online advertising – supplier disclosure may be disproportionate

The BGH aligns international jurisdiction for online trademark infringement with the target market: what matters is where the addressed consumers/traders are located—not the server location or the advertiser’s seat. It also held that disclosure of suppliers/prior owners may exceptionally be disproportionate where the infringement lies solely in the presentation of exhausted goods.
Trade Secrets

CJEU: Infringing “possession” covers stock held abroad—and also indirect possession

The CJEU clarifies that trade mark owners may prohibit “possession” under Art. 10(3)(b) Directive 2015/2436 even where goods are stocked in another Member State—if intended for offering/placing on the market in the protection state. “Possession” also includes indirect control (supervisory/managerial authority).
Trademark Law

General Court: “Eco” may still shape the overall impression despite being descriptive

The General Court clarifies that descriptive elements can still matter in the comparison of signs—especially when placed at the beginning and drawing attention due to their length/position.
AI / Personality Rights

LG Hamburg: AI-generated X post remains attributable to the account operator

The Regional Court of Hamburg held that a continuing defamatory false statement on X remains unlawful under the law of statements even if the post was generated by AI. The account operator can be held responsible for the published content.

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München