#本文由作者授權發布，未經作者許可，禁止轉載，不代表IPRdaily立場#
發布：IPRdaily中文網（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是發展趨勢。
短短幾年間，AI初創企業如雨后春筍般不斷涌現，有一些公司的市值已達數百萬美元。
對初創公司而言，擁有強大的AI相關商標權利組合是一筆優質資產，能幫助吸引并說服投資者。
對成熟企業而言，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。我們也發現，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。
在商標申請中已經涵蓋AI軟件的企業，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。
我們發現，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領域的企業對此不太熟悉？目前看來，情況是這樣的，但這個現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，例如，醫療保健、金融科技、電子商務、能源、自動駕駛車輛、網絡安全等等。
由于AI的多行業適用性，企業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會用到AI。當然，有人會說，幾年后哪有用不到AI技術的行業呢。
有鑒于此，商標代理人為AI企業起草商品名稱時非常有必要了解該企業的業務特性及未來可能發生的業務變化，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的問題。
許多AI企業積極地開發軟件、研發新算法以解決特定問題。
大型科技公司收購AI初創企業并將內部研發的AI軟件融入自己產品里，這個做法也很普遍。
AI軟件可應用在很多消費產品中，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，終端的消費產品包含后臺軟件在內的許許多多的部件，而消費者通常對此不太了解。
很多企業已經聲名在外，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，這些企業仍然需要證明自己的商標已經實際使用。
這類企業又怎么證明商標已用在AI產品上呢？
如果無法提供標準形式的使用證據，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。
如果有充分的關聯證據來證明產品里內嵌有AI軟件，這可能足以證明使用，但這類證據并不總是有。那么，接著的問題是：新聞報道和社交媒體內容能充分證明商標已經使用嗎？
按照經驗，某些商標局對非常規證據的接受度更高。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.
發布：IPRdaily中文網（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歲以下企業知識產權精英（40 Under 40）
“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權媒體+產業服務平臺，致力于連接全球知識產權人，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個國家和地區的高科技公司、成長型科技企業IP高管、研發人員、法務、政府機構、律所、事務所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產業用戶（國內25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質量的技術資源+專利資源，通過媒體構建全球知識產權資產信息第一入口。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：iprdaily.com 中文官網：iprdaily.cn）
本文來自IPRdaily中文網（iprdaily.cn）并經IPRdaily.cn中文網編輯。轉載此文章須經權利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉載，請注明出處：“http://www.meihaolucy.com/”
共發表文章
31253 篇
- 我也說兩句
- 還可以輸入140個字
