BENELUX: Chat GPT Acts as Legal Representative in Trademark Opposition

The Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) has issued a decision in an opposition filed by Penguin Books Limited and based on several PENGUIN wordmarks and logos consisting of a penguin.

The opposition was aimed against an individual applicant who sought to register the trademark ARTPENGUIN in a logo format, which included the image of a penguin, for various products in Class 16, including stationery, pencils, pastels, brushes, and other artists’ supplies.

While the substantive decision itself, which was announced on November 22, 2024, may not be groundbreaking, the novelty lies in the fact that the decision specifies the defendant’s appointed representative is ChatGPT (OpenAI).

The decision explicitly notes that the defendant submitted arguments that were, as stated in the documents, drafted by ChatGPT. However, the ruling does not delve into a broader discussion about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) or ChatGPT in legal proceedings. Instead, the defendant’s arguments were assessed on their legal and substantive merits.

A humorous moment in the decision is found in Paragraph 17, where the BOIP examiner remarks, “Moreover, the defendant wrongly compares the word element ‘Artpenguin’ with the word element ‘Penguin Books,’ which, however, does not appear in any of the invoked rights. That prompt could be better.”

This marks a rare and candid acknowledgment of AI-generated content used by a defendant within a formal legal decision. While this might not be the first time opposition proceedings have included AI-generated responses, it is certainly the first published decision to explicitly recognize such reliance.

Penguin Books Limited’s opposition was successful. The BOIP rejected the application for ARTPENGUIN for goods in Class 16 due to a likelihood of confusion, as it found the marks visually, aurally, and conceptually similar. However, the BOIP did allow the application for goods in Class 2, against which no opposition had been filed.

Despite the innovative use of AI, the outcome demonstrates that traditional principles of trademark law prevail.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA except where it has taken an official position.

© 2025 International Trademark Association