Abstract
When you use Midjourney or DALL-E you can get a nice brand logo in just a few seconds. A lot of startups and entrepreneurs in India are using these logos. Trying to get them trademarked. The problem is that the Trade Marks Act from 1999 which is the law that deals with trademarks in India was written with the idea that people create things, not machines. So it does not say if a logo made by a machine can be trademarked.
This blog is going to look closely at the problems with trademark rights for logos made by artificial intelligence in India. It will talk about the issues with making sure these logos are unique and who actually owns them. The blog will also say that the law needs to be changed soon as possible to deal with these issues. The main issue here is about trademark rights for Midjourney or DALL-E logos and how the Trade Marks Act does not cover Midjourney or DALL-E logos. The law needs to be updated to include Midjourney or DALL-E logos and artificial intelligence generated trademarks in India.
Introduction
Imagine a start-up founder in Delhi who types a few words into a program on his computer and the computer, using intelligence, designs things. Then they get a cool and modern logo for their company instantly. They get worked up. Make this logo their own by registering it as a trademark. They get caught up in a lot of confusing legal stuff. This is not something that could happen. That’s what a lot of businesses are going through every day in 2025. Design is easy with tools like Midjourney, DALL-E and Adobe Firefly that use intelligence to help everyone. Now people who don’t know much about art can do looking logos in just a few seconds. India is currently one of the countries in the world for trademark applications. With more than 540,000 applications in 2024. Many companies are using artificial intelligence to build up their brands. The law on trademarks as contained under the Trade Marks Act 1999 was enacted much before the arrival of artificial intelligence. This has created a gap in the law. This blog is going to look at three questions. Can a logo made by intelligence be trademarked in India? Who actually owns the trademark for such a logo? What changes do we need to make to the laws right away to deal with the fact that India does not have clear rules about this?
The Legal Framework: Trade Marks Act, 1999
The definition of a trademark is given in the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is a mark that can be represented as a picture. It is useful for distinguishing the goods or services of one person from the goods or services of another person. This is done under the Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This is a rather general definition. It presumes a human did the mark. The law does not speak of things made by intelligence. This means there is a legal hole to be filled. The Act lists the cases when a trademark cannot be registered. These rules are in section 9. It provides that a mark cannot be registered if it lacks distinctive character. It also says that a mark cannot be registered if it only describes something or if it is used in business commonly. This is a problem for logos made by an intelligence. These logos are mostly designed by studying a lot of designs. So they might accidentally copy patterns or shapes that are already well known. This means that they lack the quality of standing out. The Act also says who can file a trademark application. This is in Part 18. It says that only one person can apply. A person is a legally recognised individual, company, or other type of organization. According to the law, AI systems are not people. This means that an AI tool can’t be the one to file for a trademark. The Act also says who can file a trademark application. This is in Section Under 18. It says that only one person can apply. A person is a legally recognised individual, company, or other type of organization. According to the law, AI systems are not people. This means that an AI tool can’t be the one to file for a trademark. The intelligence tool must be held by the person or business entity that uses it. To understand how intelligence works with trademarks, it’s important to know about the Trade Marks Act of 1999 and its component parts such as Section 2(1) (zb), Section 9, and Section 18.
The Ownership Puzzle: Who Owns The Logo?
Ownership of the AI generated logo is a debatable topic as there are three claimants: the user who provided input, the designer who designed the AI algorithm and the AI itself. As per the laws in India, ownership rights can only belong to the former two. This depends on the platform guidelines of AI and human contribution in making the logo. In fact, even copyright of such logos can be a problem due to its technicality.
It becomes a challenge under copyright law where the Copyright Act, 1957 clearly states that the creator of the logo is the entity that causes the work to be created. As per the verdict of the Supreme Court of India, any effort or originality is required on the part of the creator in order to own the copyright. In Eastern Book Company and Ors. v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1, it was held that a minimum degree of originality and intellectual effort is essential for copyright to vest. If the logo is generated by AI alone, without any human intervention at all, then copyright remains void. Thus, it becomes difficult for anyone to claim rights over the logo since they have to show proof of using it under Section 18.
There existed a specific case which helped clarify things a little further. An artist by the name of Ankit Sahni used an AI software called RAGHAV for creating art. He filed an application for copyright protection. However, the Indian Copyright Office gave consent stating that both the artist, Ankit Sahni, and the AI software, RAGHAV, are allowed to have copyright ownership. However, after that, they rescinded the idea that RAGHAV can claim any rights since it is not a human being. This case involved copyright, while this paper involves logos. Nonetheless, what we have here is the law making sure that non-human beings do not get any form of protection by the government. The RAGHAV case is significant because it provides insights into the matter regarding AI-generated logos.
The Distinctiveness Dilemma
Even if we accept that ownership can be sorted out, AI-generated logos still run into a big problem distinctiveness. AI tools are trained on huge amounts of existing visual content from the internet. Because of this, the logos they produce often end up looking like designs that are already out there with the same shapes, similar colours, and familiar patterns. The Indian Trademark Registry has noticed this too. Between 2022 and 2024, there has been a sharp rise in objections under Section 9 and Section 11 against AI-style logos, particularly in technology-related categories.
There is another issue that does not get talked about enough: the non-exclusivity of AI prompts. Say five different people type the exact same prompt, like ‘modern minimalist logo with blue curves.’ There is a good chance all five get nearly identical results. Now under Indian trademark law, whoever files first wins. But this throws up a strange problem: almost identical logos could end up being registered by different people in different product categories. This leads to confusion in the market and long drawn -out opposition battles before the Trademark Trial and Appellate Board.
Things get even more complicated at a practical level. The Registry can also apply what is known as the ‘functionality doctrine.’ Simply put, if a design element is there to serve a practical or descriptive purpose which is often the case with default AI-generated shapes it cannot be trademarked. And this holds true even if a human was involved in the process.”
The Global Contrast: How Other Jurisdictions Respond
India’s legislative absence is different from how other major jurisdictions are changing their responses. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made it clear that a “natural person” must apply for a trademark in the United States. But people who use AI tools with a real creative purpose can apply for trademark protection as long as they can show that they added something creative to the final design.
Article 15(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) claims that member states must let people register signs that can tell the difference between goods or services. On the other hand, TRIPS doesn’t say anything about who owns AI; that’s up to each country’s laws. The European Union Intellectual Property Office also says that people should be involved in the creative process and gives some tips in its examination guidelines. This has not happened in India yet.
It’s interesting to note that even these nations don’t have fully developed AI-specific trademark laws yet. But they have at least given applicants and examiners official advice or practice notes to help them deal with the problem. India’s Trademark Manual (Registry Practice, 2017), which was last updated in 2017, does not mention AI-generated marks at all. This means that both applicants and trademark examiners do not have a clear set of rules to follow.
India’s Legal Silence: Why It Matters
India faces one of the problems, there are no rules or legislations related to AI trademarks. This leads to the companies that are developing their brand on artificial intelligence logos to enter into some trouble. Trademarks could receive objections or rejection, and the companies are not sure about what their rights and remedies are. Further, since there is only license of the logos given to the user in the artificial intelligence platforms, their claim over the trademark would be diluted.
The goal of India is to become the country with the highest number of trademarks filed than the US by the year 2026. Unless these AI trademarks issues are addressed immediately this goal would turn out to be a far-fetched one. Without regulations, a number of AI logos will enter the Trademark Registry creating numerous ownership disputes and the entire process will be significantly delayed.
In 2025, the Indian government had a committee formed to review and amend the Copyright Act of 1957. Just the same, the Trademarks Act of 1999 needs to be amended. India should at least consider these points and apply it to properly function the process, and for that every trademark application that comprises an artificial intelligence logo should state that it has been created with the use of artificial intelligence, and should provide minimum inputs for accepting the intelligence logo. Intelligence trademarks need to be regulated.
Conclusion
Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the creative space and logos, names and slogans can be developed in mere seconds. The same is not true for Indian trademark law. It is built around the concept of human authorship and legal personality. As a result, a logo produced by an AI sits in a grey area – technically registrable, but susceptible to objections based on distinctiveness, ownership and lack of prior use on account of being “same or confusingly similar”.
In the RAGHAV Case, the increased resistance of the Trademark Registry to AI-like filings, and the international discourse surrounding AI and IP are all signals. India can no longer sit and be a silent spectator. Legislation or clear administrative guidance will be essential.
In the meantime, brands would be prudent to see AI purely as a creative assistant, ensuring significant human intervention in the development of logos, detailed documentation of their development process and early filing of trademarks. The law might be slow but the strategy need not be.
REFERENCES
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act No. 47 of 1999).
The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act No. 14 of 1957).
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), art. 15(1), 1994.
Eastern Book Company and Ors. v. D.B. Modak.
RAGHAV Case (Please provide the full case name or citation, as “RAGHAV Case” is not sufficient for an ILI citation.)
Authorship of AI Generated Works under the Copyright Act, 1957, Avishek Chakraborty, (2019) 8(2) Nirma University Law Journal.
LiveLaw, “AI Generated Brands: Next Wave of Trademark Litigation”, 2025, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/ai-generated-brands-next-wave-trademark-litigation-528319 (last visited July 5, 2026).
LegalWiz, “Can You Trademark an AI-Generated Logo in India?”, Dec. 31, 2025, available at: https://www.legalwiz.in/blog/can-you-trademark-an-ai-generated-logo (last visited July 5, 2026).
Maheshwari & Co., “AI Generated Trademarks in India”, July 15, 2025, available at: https://www.maheshwariandco.com/blog/ai-generated-trademarks-in-india/ (last visited July 5, 2026).
Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), Trade Marks Manual (2017), available at: https://ipindia.gov.in (last visited July 5, 2026).
