Generative AI considerations for brand creators and owners

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Generative AI considerations for brand creators and owners

Sponsored by

twobirds-400px.jpg
ai-generated-7816775.jpg

Robert Milligan of Bird & Bird explains the opportunities and challenges presented by generative AI for brand creators and owners, and suggests how to mitigate the risks

Whether you like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) pervades modern society and has done for some time. Think, for example, of virtual personal assistants such as Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, Google Assistant and Microsoft’s Cortana. Like any disruptive technology, the rise of AI has brought numerous opportunities and challenges for individuals and businesses. This has never been more true than for generative AI products such as ChatGPT and DALL-E.

This article seeks to summarise some of the main issues posed by these generative AIs to brand creators and owners in the UK and provide ways of mitigating the risks.

Considerations for brand creators

There is an opportunity for businesses and design agencies to harness the power of generative AI to create new names, logos, designs and other brand elements. However, in utilising this technology for brand creation purposes, issues arise with regard to ownership and potential intellectual property (IP) infringement.

At its most basic, to create any new content, the AI model is trained to generate new examples that resemble patterns and characteristics from the AI’s existing dataset. In theory, the output should be entirely novel. However, in practice, the outcome may be similar or identical to the existing dataset.

While the AI system software programmers are likely to be the first owners of any copyright in the AI’s computer program, ownership of the AI-generated content is not straightforward, and the UK courts will likely need to determine the issue. Until then, there can be no certainty for businesses as to the legal ownership of these newly created names or logos in the UK, even where an assignment of the AI-generated content has been obtained from the AI system software programmer.

Use of the AI-generated content in the marketplace may also amount to an infringement of third-party IP. For example, it is entirely feasible that a newly created AI-generated logo is identical or similar to an existing registered trademark to the extent that any use of that new logo amounts to trademark infringement under the UK Trade Marks Act 1994.

As such, businesses need to:

  • Exercise caution when using AI-generated content for brand creation;

  • Appreciate that they may never own the IP rights to the brand outright; and

  • Undertake comprehensive clearance searches before commencing use of the brand in the UK.

Considerations for brand owners

If businesses are to use generative AI to create new brands, existing rights holders should be vigilant and actively monitor the UK marketplace to prevent any infringement of their rights. Brand owners should also ensure that their trademark protection is adequate for their needs.

Marketplace monitoring will also assist brand owners in detecting counterfeit goods, which have been made easier to produce through generative AI. This will mitigate the financial impact on brand owners through lost sales, brand dilution and reputational damage caused by inferior products being placed on the market.

Aside from counterfeiting and infringement, brand owners should be alive to the fact that, as a consumer-facing technology, generative AI can affect a brand’s reputation.

Where the AI’s training dataset contains bias or inaccuracies, misleading or false information may be disseminated to consumers, which could result in widespread reputational damage to the brand, particularly in this age of social media. Equally, malicious persons can utilise generative AI to create and disseminate misleading advertising, phishing attempts, and other fraudulent activities to deceive and tarnish the reputation of a brand.

In addition, brand dilution and confused messaging may occur where the generative AI uses the brand inconsistently with how the brand owner uses it.

As such, brand owners should actively monitor and amend (where required) information about their brand that is in the public domain so it is accurate and up to date, to avoid widespread misinformation.

Comment

While generative AI brings unprecedented opportunities for innovation and creativity, it also poses risks for brand creators and owners.

Creators may never be able to own AI-generated brands outright but, if these brands are adopted, should undertake comprehensive clearance searches before commencing use in the UK.

Existing brand owners should actively monitor the marketplace for infringing use and misinformation, and take appropriate action where necessary.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article