人工智能領域企業(yè)提交商標申請，需要注意哪些獨特問題？

#本文由作者授權發(fā)布，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，不代表IPRdaily立場#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）

作者：Claire Hutson    麥仕奇英國倫敦辦公室

譯者：黃雪芳   麥仕奇北京辦公室

供稿：麥仕奇知識產(chǎn)權

原標題：人工智能領域商標：一系列獨特問題

不論人工智能（以下簡稱AI）令人恐懼、興奮或兼而有之，不可否認AI是發(fā)展趨勢。

短短幾年間，AI初創(chuàng)企業(yè)如雨后春筍般不斷涌現(xiàn)，有一些公司的市值已達數(shù)百萬美元。

對初創(chuàng)公司而言，擁有強大的AI相關商標權利組合是一筆優(yōu)質(zhì)資產(chǎn)，能幫助吸引并說服投資者。

對成熟企業(yè)而言，關鍵點是確保擁有強大的商標注冊基礎以維護自身商標權利，尤其是企業(yè)商標已全球知名的情況下。

英國常常被視為歐洲的AI中心。同時，法國、德國、西班牙、瑞典也有活躍的AI行業(yè)。我們也發(fā)現(xiàn)，AI領域的商標申請越來越多。

2014年2月至2019年2月五年間，向歐盟知識產(chǎn)權局提交的近45,000件商標申請涵蓋了AI領域。

 
其中17,000件申請來自英國，這表明英國是目前為止AI軟件企業(yè)最大的聚集地之一。

 
來自斯堪的納維亞半島的AI商標申請數(shù)量也在增長，挪威、瑞典、丹麥和芬蘭共計提交了3,500 件申請。

 
在商標申請中已經(jīng)涵蓋AI軟件的企業(yè)，需要應對一系列獨特問題。

如何起草商品名稱？

起草商品的名稱，須經(jīng)仔細考量。

歐洲目前接受“軟件”作為單獨的商品名，但該名稱已不足以全面覆蓋AI這一巨大領域。

在商品名稱中更詳細地說明所涉軟件的具體特性已是當前的一種標準做法，尤其對于AI領域的產(chǎn)品而言，但僅包含AI相關的術語恐怕不夠。

到底該怎么描述商品名稱呢？

商品名稱如果過于技術化可能會在商標主管機關那兒遇到問題。比如，機器學習、深度學習、樹檢索等等專業(yè)術語可能對于程序員來說是熟悉的，但對于商標審查員來說就不是那么回事。

我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，不同地域的審查員，不論歐美還是日本，均不接受過于技術化的商品名稱。如果恰好有“精通技術”（借用專利代理師朋友的常用語）的審查員熟悉這些技術名稱是不是就行了呢，即使其他未深涉AI領域的企業(yè)對此不太熟悉？目前看來，情況是這樣的，但這個現(xiàn)象可能不會持久而且也非跨地域的通行標準。

一個解決方案是盡力去描述軟件將實際應用的領域。

AI可應用于許多行業(yè)，例如，醫(yī)療保健、金融科技、電子商務、能源、自動駕駛車輛、網(wǎng)絡安全等等。

由于AI的多行業(yè)適用性，企業(yè)可能難以在早期就預知未來將進入哪些應用領域，也很難預知將來哪些行業(yè)會用到AI。當然，有人會說，幾年后哪有用不到AI技術的行業(yè)呢。

有鑒于此，商標代理人為AI企業(yè)起草商品名稱時非常有必要了解該企業(yè)的業(yè)務特性及未來可能發(fā)生的業(yè)務變化，以使商品名稱能涵蓋未來的需要。

如何證明商標使用？

AI商標還可能面臨難以提供使用證據(jù)的問題。

許多AI企業(yè)積極地開發(fā)軟件、研發(fā)新算法以解決特定問題。

大型科技公司收購AI初創(chuàng)企業(yè)并將內(nèi)部研發(fā)的AI軟件融入自己產(chǎn)品里，這個做法也很普遍。

AI軟件可應用在很多消費產(chǎn)品中，比如亞馬遜的語音助手Alexa、蘋果公司的語音助手Siri。但問題是，終端的消費產(chǎn)品包含后臺軟件在內(nèi)的許許多多的部件，而消費者通常對此不太了解。

很多企業(yè)已經(jīng)聲名在外，頻頻登上媒體新聞頭條。但當需要維護商標權利時，例如對抗他人提出的撤銷申請、對他人商標提起異議或無效宣告時，或者為了在美國獲得注冊時，這些企業(yè)仍然需要證明自己的商標已經(jīng)實際使用。

 
這類企業(yè)又怎么證明商標已用在AI產(chǎn)品上呢？

如果無法提供標準形式的使用證據(jù)，例如清楚展示有商標的賬單或廣告材料，要證明商標已實際使用恐怕比較棘手。

如果有充分的關聯(lián)證據(jù)來證明產(chǎn)品里內(nèi)嵌有AI軟件，這可能足以證明使用，但這類證據(jù)并不總是有。那么，接著的問題是：新聞報道和社交媒體內(nèi)容能充分證明商標已經(jīng)使用嗎？

按照經(jīng)驗，某些商標局對非常規(guī)證據(jù)的接受度更高。比如，中國商標局曾接受將大量的新聞報導作為商標已使用的證明，以支持權利人針對他人在類似或不類似商品和服務上申請的近似商標而提出的異議主張。

此外，金寶湯公司（Campbell Soup）近期在美國之所以能成功注冊“Chunky”商標也相當程度上得益于該商標高頻出現(xiàn)在媒體及流行文化里。

總之，與面對任何新技術一樣，商標代理人及審查員均需跟上并適應AI技術帶來的實務變化。

附：英文版

AI trade marks: a unique set of problems

Whether it fills you with fear, excitement or both – there's no denying that artificial intelligence (AI) is a growing trend.

AI start-ups are popping up all the time with some becoming multi-million dollar companies in just a few years.

For new companies, having a strong portfolio of AI specifictrade marks is an asset that can help attract and persuade investors.

For established companies, making sure that they have a strong base from which to enforce their trade mark rights is essential, especially if that trade mark frequently makes global headlines.

 
The UK is frequently cited as the European hub for AI; however, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden all have active AI industries. We have seen that more and more trade mark applications being filed in the field of AI.

In the five years to February 2019, nearly 45,000 trademarks were filed at the EU Intellectual Property Office covering AI.  
 

17,000 of these came from the UK, suggesting the UK is oneof the largest centres for AI software companies at the moment.

 
There are also a growing number of trade mark applicationscovering AI in Scandinavia, with 3,500 applications filed in Norway, Sweden,Denmark and Finland combined.

For those companies that have filed trade mark applications for their marks covering AI software there are a number of unique challenges to consider.

Drafting specifications

Drafting specifications must be considered very carefully.

"Software" as a term alone is currently accepted in Europe, however, it is no longer practically sufficient to cover this huge area.

Including specific detail about the nature of the software is now standard practice and this is especially true for AI. However, only including terms that specify AI may not be enough anymore either.

So, what terms should be included?

Being overly technical can create problems at trade mark offices. While terms such as machine learning, deep learning and tree search may be familiar to programmers, they may be less so to trade mark examiners.

We have found examiners in territories ranging from the EU to Japan have objected to these terms. Is it sufficient that a person "skilled in the art" (to borrow language from our patent attorney friends) would be familiar with these terms when a business not active in AI may not? So far, we have found that it is but this may not continue to be the case and is not standard across territories.

Alternatively, you may choose to specify by the industry the software is to be used in.

AI has applicability in any number of industries including healthcare, fintech, e-commerce, energy, autonomous vehicles, cyber security and more.

As such, it can be difficult for a company to know early on if they might enter one of these areas in the future. It is also difficult to predict industries that may utilise AI in the future; some would argue that no industry will be free of AI in a few years.

It is essential therefore that trade mark attorneys drafting specifications for AI companies understand the nature of the business and how that might change in the future.

Is the trade mark in use?

A second issue that can arise is a lack of evidence.

Many AI companies are active in researching software and develop new algorithms to solve specific problems.

It is also very common for large tech companies to acquire AI star-ups and incorporate the AI developed in-house into their products.

The resulting AI software may be used in many consumer products e.g. Amazon's Alexa or Apple's Siri. The problem arises in that these products are made up of many parts, that do include the background AI software, but the consumer is generally not aware of this.

 
Many of these companies become very well-known as they are frequently the subject of news articles. However, when enforcing their trade marks these companies may need to rely on evidence either to defend a cancellation action, oppose or invalidate an application or to prove that it is being used to allow an application to be registered in the US.

 
How does such a company then show that the mark has been used in relation to AI?

Without standard forms of evidence such as invoices or advertising materials that clearly show the trade mark, this can be tricky.

If there is enough linking evidence to show that a product has incorporated AI this may be enough but this is not always available. The question then becomes: are news articles and social media content enough to show use of a trade mark?

In our experience, some trade mark offices are more accepting of unusual evidence. The Chinese trade mark office, for instance, has previously accepted large amounts of press articles to support oppositions against applications for similar marks for both similar and dissimilar goods and services.

Likewise, Campbell Soup's recent filing of the term "Chunky" in the US relied heavily on media mentions and pop culture references.

As with any new technology, Chartered Trade Mark Attorneys and examiners will need to keep up with the changes brought by AI.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）

作者：Claire Hutson    麥仕奇英國倫敦辦公室

譯者：黃雪芳   麥仕奇北京辦公室

供稿：麥仕奇知識產(chǎn)權

編輯：IPRdaily王穎          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀（點擊圖文，閱讀全文）

開年重磅！尋找40位40歲以下企業(yè)知識產(chǎn)權精英（40 Under 40）

2019粵港澳大灣區(qū)“高價值專利培育布局”大賽最全攻略！

“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務平臺，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務、政府機構、律所、事務所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國內(nèi)25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質(zhì)量的技術資源+專利資源，通過媒體構建全球知識產(chǎn)權資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來自IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://www.islanderfriend.com/”