Ad/Marketing Communication
This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns AI Law.
Engineer.Ai Global Ltd v Appy Pie Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 1430 (IPEC) is available at Bailii here:
In that case, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) examined the distinctiveness of trade marks incorporating the term “Builder” within the “no code” app development industry. Engineer.ai Global Ltd (“Engineer.ai”) alleged that Appy Pie Ltd and Appy Pie LLP (“Appy Pie”) infringed upon their registered trade marks, including BUILDER and BUILDER.AI, by using similar terms in their product names and marketing materials.
AI Implications in the Case
A central aspect of the judgment was the evaluation of the “.AI” suffix in Engineer.ai’s BUILDER.AI trade mark. The court deliberated on whether this component added distinctiveness to the mark. It concluded that, within the context of the software industry, “AI” is widely recognised as an abbreviation for artificial intelligence. Consequently, the “.AI” element was deemed descriptive, indicating a builder tool that utilises AI, and did not confer additional distinctiveness to the mark.
Broader Impact on AI-Related Trade Marks
This ruling underscores the challenges in securing trade mark protection for terms that are descriptive or commonly used within an industry, especially those related to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. It highlights the necessity for businesses to develop unique and distinctive branding elements that go beyond generic or descriptive terms to achieve effective trade mark protection.
Engaging Elements from the Judgment
The court’s analysis of the term “Builder” and the “.AI” suffix provides valuable insights into how technological abbreviations are perceived legally. This is particularly relevant as AI becomes increasingly integrated into various industries, influencing how trade marks are assessed for distinctiveness.
