Contested trademark

Disputed Trademark Case: “Kemmern mud therapy”

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have become indispensable — they help us complete simple tasks faster and complex tasks more easily. Many entrepreneurs are now turning to AI to create elements of their company’s visual identity — such as customer greetings or even logos for new products. The advantages seem obvious: speed, efficiency, and lower costs compared to hiring a professional designer.

However, how can one ensure that this creative assistance does not lead to unforeseen legal complications? A recent decision by the Industrial Property Board of Appeal of the Latvian Patent Office concerning the trademark “Kemmern mud therapy” (fig.) touches on precisely these issues (the full decision is available [here]).

The Case in Brief

The company SIA “Ķemeru Dūņas” had registered a logo as a trademark. Another person filed an opposition, claiming that the design was her own copyrighted work, that she had not consented to its use or registration, and that the application was made in bad faith.

The Board concluded that the opponent had not sufficiently proven her authorship, since she had used the online logo creation tool Turbologo, and the company’s prior use of the sign before the registration date showed that the application had not been filed in bad faith.

As a result, the trademark remained registered, and the opposition was dismissed.

Lessons Learned

This case illustrates that an author can only be a natural person whose creative activity results in a particular work. Therefore, a work generated by artificial intelligence, by itself, has no author. Merely requesting an AI system to generate content does not automatically grant the requester copyright protection over that content.

However, as the decision shows, a trademark does not have to qualify as a copyrighted work in order to be registered. What matters is that the trademark meets the requirements set out in the Trademarks Law — it is not necessary to identify a specific author.

Moreover, trademark protection can outlast any former copyright protection — what matters is that the mark is genuinely used in commerce.

Nevertheless, legal disputes often reveal unforeseen circumstances that the parties did not initially consider. To avoid such complications, here are a few practical recommendations for those who wish to turn AI-generated material into a work that more clearly reflects their own authorship:

Practical Tips

1. Document the entire creative process.

The Board specifically noted that the AI tool Turbologo generated the final design, and the human user did not make significant creative choices.
AI-generated logos can be an excellent starting point, but it is worthwhile to preserve sketches, idea variations, and any modifications made. This helps demonstrate the extent of your personal creative contribution.
Changed shapes, colors, or proportions? That’s how a truly unique brand emerges.

2. Record ownership of economic rights.
This is especially important when the design is created by a team or in collaboration with external partners. Make sure it is clearly documented who owns the rights to the final product.

In Conclusion

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool — but legal certainty requires transparent documentation and a clearly identifiable human creative contribution.

If you plan to develop a logo or visual identity using AI, take steps to ensure — and to prove — that your creativity lies at the heart of it.