AI coding may be making software obsolete, but how are EUTMs impacted?

If many recent articles are to be believed, AI coding is destroying software as a good or a service (you can read a recent discussion around the impending “SaaSpocalypse” here). However, a quick look at ongoing developments at the EUIPO with regard to software would show that not much is changing within the EU, at least for now.

The EUIPO, the EU trademark (EUTM) authority, is still accepting and publishing marks covering the item “computer software” (e.g., EUTM application No. 019346176, filed and published on April 10 2026), and even “software” (e.g., EUTM application No. 019345561, filed and published on April 9 2026). So the EUIPO tradition of granting trademark protection to very broad lists of goods and services, including to all forms of software, is ‘business as usual’.

The EUIPO even remains quite open-minded and accepting regarding new types of software, recently registering examples such as “vibe-coding software” (e.g., EUTM application No. 019274152). Once you accept software as a concept, it is logical to accept all types of software, which meshes well with EUIPO practice. “Artificial intelligence as a service (AIaaS)” and “Blockchain as a service (BaaS)” are not only accepted as standalone items, they are now included within the EUIPO Harmonised Database.

The question then becomes how are these very broad items, such as “software”, being enforced by the EUIPO? Generally, the Opposition/Cancellation Divisions, Boards of Appeal, and the General Court are still quite abstract when comparing different types of software, typically finding them to be similar.

For example, the General Court (third instance) recently held that “Computer software; software products” were identical to “Downloadable mobile applications offering electronic news, information and publications in the field of law” in Class 9 (see Case T-553/24), which the Court of Justice of the European Union refused to hear at fourth instance (akin to “cert. denied”) on December 15 2025 (see Case C-610/25P). In that case, the broad category of “Computer software; software products” was in the application, and the opponent had the narrow item, so one might wonder why the applicant did not try to restrict its own list of goods.

Another recent example confirming the broad enforcement of “software” is the EUIPO First Board of Appeal decision of February 4 2026 in Case R 1713/2025-1. Here, “gambling software” was held to be highly similar to “software; none of the aforesaid goods relating to audio software or audio hardware for audio emulation, audio producing, audio recording, audio manipulation or audio processing”. The opponent’s registration was less than five years old at first instance, so no proof of use could be demanded, and the broad list was taken at face value.

In its decision of February 5 2026, the EUIPO Cancellation Division held “software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for Computational Fluid Dynamics” in Class 42 of the Nice Classification to be highly similar to “IT consultancy, advisory and information services”, reasoning that the services coincided in their distribution channels, relevant public, and usual providers, and were also complementary (see Case C 69119).

Lately, however, and perhaps luckily, certain EUIPO Boards of Appeal have been able to find non-similarity between types of specific software products. For example, the EUIPO Fifth Board of Appeal held that “communications server software” and “gambling software” were non-similar and found for the applicant (see Case R 0992/2024-5). So, as with many decisions before the EUIPO, we can rarely guarantee a specific outcome.

So what does all this mean for the future of trademark registration around software within the EU?

For now, it is safe to say that EUTMs covering software are very much alive and well. This is because the EUIPO continues to grant broad rights, and allows the enforcement of those broad rights, at least until the use-requirement kicks in after five years. So the EUIPO continues to be opponent-friendly, and there appears to be no reason to stop seeking protection for software in the EU. How this approach might change, as we see increased AI adoption, is a question that remains open to speculation.