Registrability of an AI-generated logo in Italy and Europe

The legislation clearly identifies who is entitled to register a trademark:

• In Italy, “a trademark registration may be obtained by anyone who uses, or intends to use, it […] in the provision of services of its own undertaking or undertakings under its control, or that use it with its consent” (see Article 19, Italian Industrial Property Code).
• At EU level, “Any natural or legal person, including authorities established under public law, may be the proprietor of an EU trademark” (see Article 5, Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).

There is no requirement—either in Italy or in Europe—that the applicant also be the author of the work or the holder of copyright in the logo. Trademark registration neither presupposes nor grants creative authorship; it depends exclusively on the sign’s distinctive function and its actual or intended use in commerce.

To be registrable as a trademark (even if AI-generated), a logo must meet, inter alia, the following:

• Novelty: the logo must not be identical or confusingly similar to earlier registered marks for identical or similar goods or services (see Article 12 CPI; Article 8 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
• Distinctive character: the sign must be capable of distinguishing the undertaking’s goods or services from those of other economic operators (see Article 13 CPI; Article 7 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
• Lawfulness of the sign (see Article 14 CPI; Article 7(1)(g)–(h) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).

That said, particular attention must be paid to usage rights in relation to the AI-generated logo. If the image comes from a platform that imposes contractual restrictions — such as limited licences, prohibitions on commercial use, or express reservations of rights — using the logo as a trademark may conflict with rights retained by the platform. In such cases, the sign may fail to satisfy the lawfulness requirement for registration.

Under Article 14(1)(c) CPI, signs are not registrable where their use would infringe third-party copyright, industrial property rights, or other exclusive rights. At EU level, the principle is reflected in Article 7(1)(f) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which excludes signs contrary to law or public policy.

Finally, before filing a trademark application, it is essential to review the contractual terms of the platform used: not all AI tools allocate the same rights in the generated image, and those clauses may determine whether a valid title can be obtained.

Each tool has its own rules. For example, OpenAI’s terms for DALL·E (available at https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/) state, in essence, that — subject to applicable law — the user owns the output they generate and may reuse and commercialise it.

This means that, within the limits of the law, a user generating content with DALL·E acquires ownership of the result, including commercial usage rights and the ability to claim exclusivity.

The position is different for Canva AI. According to Canva’s Content License Agreement (available at https://www.canva.com/policies/content-license-agreement/), generated images are provided under “a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide license to use the Content.a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide licence”.

Canva therefore grants commercial usage rights, but not exclusivity: the same content may be licensed to other users, and the platform retains certain residual rights, thereby preventing the content from being effectively controlled on an exclusive basis by a single party. In such circumstances, lack of exclusivity may hinder registration, since the lawfulness requirement — or full control of the rights needed to sustain a trademark or design right — may be missing.

For an in-depth analysis of the issue, with particular attention to the commercial exploitation of AI-generated images, see the Canella Camaiora article: “Can AI-generated images be used for commercial purposes?”.

Can an AI-generated logo be registered as an industrial design?

A logo created with the aid of Artificial Intelligence may also be registered as an industrial design, provided it meets the statutory substantive requirements. However, unlike trademarks, Italian and EU rules in this field expressly refer to the “author” of the design (see Article 38 CPI and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002), presupposing that the design is attributable to human creative input.

EU law, in particular, attributes the right to the design to the author or their successors in title — i.e., those who acquired the right by contract or transfer. This inevitably echoes copyright logic: it is not sufficient that the logo be generated by a machine; there must be a human intervention that can be characterised as the “development” or “conception” of the design. As discussed in “Artificial intelligence and copyright: creativity remains (Still) human”, it is the human role in the generative process that grounds entitlement. In practical terms, the person who guided the AI system (e.g., by crafting prompts, selecting outputs, and refining the result) may legitimately be considered the author.

In theory, therefore, registration is admissible only if the design is attributable to a human. In practice, however, neither the UIBM nor the EUIPO typically verifies whether the creative process was human: examination is largely formal and does not address authorship. Any challenges generally arise only in opposition proceedings or litigation.

The statutory requirements remain unchanged:

• Novelty: the design must not have been disclosed before filing (see Article 32 CPI; Article 5 Regulation 6/2002). A 12-month grace period applies, allowing registration even where the logo has already been made public (see Article 34 CPI; Article 7 Regulation 6/2002).
• Individual character: the design must produce a different “overall impression” compared to prior designs (see Article 33 CPI; Article 6 Regulation 6/2002).
• Lawfulness: the design must not be contrary to public policy and must not infringe earlier rights of third parties (see Article 33-bis CPI; Article 9 Regulation 6/2002).

From this perspective, it is again essential to verify that the AI-generated logo does not reproduce protected imagery and is not subject to contractual restrictions imposed by the platform used. The same principles discussed for trademarks apply to designs as well—particularly regarding the lawfulness of the image and the availability of exclusive usage rights. It is therefore crucial to review the AI platform’s contractual terms, because, as noted, not all tools guarantee exclusivity. By way of example, while OpenAI (DALL·E) generally allocates full ownership of output to the user (subject to law), Canva AI typically provides only a non-exclusive licence, which may preclude valid registration as a design.

On this point, we refer again to the detailed analysis in the Canella Camaiora article “Can AI-generated images be used for commercial purposes?”.

Assisted creativity: Why register an AI-generated logo

Registering a logo created with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence means protecting what you believe in and securing an exclusive right over a sign that represents your business identity. Even where AI contributed to the graphic development, what matters is that a human or legal entity can legitimately claim ownership and use.

The law does not focus on the tool, but on the legal availability of the result: if the logo is lawful, new, and distinctive (or, for design purposes, has individual character), it can be protected as a trademark or as a design. Registration is therefore a strategic step, not a mere formality: it is what turns a graphic into an exclusive asset — defendable and capable of being enhanced over time.