+++ MUNICH I REGIONAL COURT: GOOGLE LIABLE FOR FALSE STATEMENTS IN AI OVERVIEWS +++
The Munich I Regional Court has ordered Google to cease disseminating factual claims about two publishing houses through its “AI Overview” feature. Unlike conventional search results, Google did not simply find and display third-party content. Instead, the AI Overview independently summarised and restructured information, and used it to formulate an answer to the search query. The answer was thus to be considered as content produced by Google itself. To that extent, the provider could not rely on liability privileges for third-party content.
To the Munich I Regional Court press release on the judgment (28 May 2026, 26 O 869/26, in German)
+++ FRANKFURT REGIONAL COURT: SIMILAR AI-EDITED PRODUCT IMAGE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY INFRINGE COPYRIGHT +++
The Frankfurt Regional Court has dismissed an action concerning similarly designed product images of cable glands. The claimant had assumed that the defendant had entered the claimant’s product photograph into an AI system and generated its own image on that basis. However, the fact that test runs using the claimant’s photograph produced a similar result was not sufficient to prove that the defendant had in fact used that photograph as input. The defendant had submitted its own source photographs. Even assuming that the claimant’s photograph had been used, the Court found no interference with the narrow scope of protection afforded to the product photograph as a simple photograph. Uploading the photograph to the AI system could potentially amount to an unauthorised reproduction but this was not at issue in the proceedings. The Court also held that another image, specifically a computer-generated CAD rendering, was neither protected as a photograph nor, in the absence of sufficient originality, as a copyright work.
To the judgment of Frankfurt Regional Court (27 May 2026, 2-06 O 347/25, in German)
+++ HIGHER ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA: POTENTIAL FUTURE USE OF AI TO ENHANCE AERIAL IMAGES DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO A GREATER INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS +++
The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia has dismissed an appeal concerning aerial images taken by a municipality to assess stormwater charges. The claimant argued, among other things, that the relatively blurred images of its property could in future be processed and sharpened using AI, and combined with other data. In the Court’s view, the mere technical possibility of such processing did not automatically mean that taking and using the aerial images already constituted an infringement of fundamental rights of more than a minor nature. There was no specific indication that the municipality or its service provider intended to carry out AI-assisted post-processing. Nor did the abstract possibility of data theft and subsequent processing by third parties alter that assessment.
To the decision of the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (22 June 2026, 16 B 169/25, in German)
+++ MUNICH REGIONAL COURT I: GEMA PREVAILS AGAINST AI MUSIC GENERATOR SUNO +++
Munich I Regional Court largely upheld GEMA’s claims for injunctive relief, information and damages against the provider of the Suno AI music generator. The case concerned six protected musical works that had undisputedly been used to train the model. In the Court’s view, the works had not only been used during the training process. Rather, their distinctive musical elements had been encoded in the model parameters in such a way that they could be reproducibly retrieved through suitable inputs. The Court regarded this “memorisation” as an embodiment of the works in the model and therefore as a reproduction relevant under copyright law. It also found further reproductions in the challenged outputs, which were sufficiently similar to the original works. The storage of the works in the model was not covered by the text and data mining exception under section 44b of the German Copyright Act. The Court applied US copyright law to the training activities carried out in the United States and rejected the fair use defence.
To the Munich I Regional Court press release (31 July 2026, 42 O 763/25, in German)
+++ GENERAL COURT: “OPENAI” CANNOT BE REGISTERED AS AN EU TRADE MARK FOR AI-RELATED GOODS AND SERVICES +++
The General Court of the EU has dismissed OpenAI’s action against the partial rejection of its application to register “OPENAI” as an EU trade mark. The relevant English-speaking public would understand the sign, consisting of the elements “open” and “AI”, as referring to freely accessible or unrestricted artificial intelligence. In relation to the software and IT services in question, the sign therefore directly described a characteristic or intended use of the goods and services. Combining the two common elements without a space or hyphen does not convey a meaning that goes beyond the sum of its parts. Consequently, the sign is descriptive and lacks sufficient distinctive character for the goods and services in question.
To the judgment of the General Court (15 July 2026, T-555/25)
