On June 1, 2026, the Berlin Regional Court II (Landgericht Berlin II, Case No. 52 O 62/26 eV) issued the first published German decision at the intersection of AI-generated search and trademark law. A perfume manufacturer had sought an injunction against Google, claiming that the AI Overviews feature generated texts when users searched for its branded perfumes that pointed to cheaper imitation products — so-called fragrance dupes — and included links to suppliers of those products. The court dismissed the application: Google’s operation of AI Overviews does not constitute trademark use of the claimant’s marks, and Google does not stand in a direct competitive relationship with the perfume manufacturer. The ruling is not yet final, but it sets an important first reference point for the growing number of brand owners who feel disadvantaged by AI-generated search results.
The outcome is noteworthy in part because it stands in contrast to a ruling by the Munich I Regional Court from May 2026, which held Google directly liable for false statements in AI Overviews — albeit on the basis of personality rights rather than trademark law. This parallel development illustrates that the liability of AI search systems is one of the most significant and still unresolved questions in German IT and IP law for years to come.
The term “fragrance dupe” refers to a perfume product that closely resembles a premium branded fragrance in scent and appearance but is sold at a fraction of the price. The market for fragrance dupes has grown enormously in recent years, fueled in no small part by social media platforms where influencers explicitly compare luxury perfumes to cheaper alternatives. From a legal standpoint, many dupe suppliers operate in a grey area: while fragrance itself enjoys no copyright protection under settled case law, packaging design, brand names, and comparative advertising can give rise to trademark or unfair competition claims.
What is genuinely novel about the Berlin case is not whether fragrance dupes are permissible as such — that is already an intensively debated question — but whether Google, as a search engine operator, bears trademark liability when its AI feature names a manufacturer’s brand and simultaneously directs users to cheaper alternatives. This question arises not just for perfume brands, but for any brand whose name appears in AI-generated search results.
Under German trademark law (Markengesetz) and the EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), a trademark infringement requires that a third party uses a protected sign in the course of trade, without consent, and as an indication of commercial origin — the so-called trademark use requirement. Under settled case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), a mere mention of a brand name in a descriptive or informational context does not in principle constitute trademark use.
The Berlin Regional Court II found that Google had not crossed this threshold. In the court’s view, the AI Overviews feature merely provides technical infrastructure that aggregates content from the web. Google does not use the claimant’s marks to distinguish its own goods or services from those of the claimant. A normally informed user would understand the AI-generated texts as summaries of third-party sources in a new search result format — not as Google’s own commercial communication. The court accordingly held that the trademark use requirement was not satisfied.
Particularly debatable is the court’s finding that Google exercises no decisive control over the selection and content of the sources processed by its AI. It is, of course, Google itself that develops, trains, and operates the AI Overviews technology. The court appears to draw a distinction between the technical system provider and the substantive content producer — a distinction that also features in discussions around the Digital Services Act (DSA), though it tends to point in a different direction there. Whether this reasoning will survive appeal remains to be seen.
In addition to the trademark claims, the perfume manufacturer also asserted unfair competition claims under the German Act Against Unfair Commercial Practices (UWG). These too were unsuccessful. A fundamental prerequisite for such claims under § 8 UWG is that the parties stand in a concrete competitive relationship. Since the claimant manufactures and sells perfumes while Google operates a search engine, no such relationship exists between the parties.
The claimant argued that the AI-generated texts indirectly promoted the sales of dupe suppliers, thereby establishing an indirect competitive relationship. The court rejected this argument: any benefit that might accrue to dupe suppliers is a mere reflex of the search engine’s operation, not a targeted commercial act by Google in furtherance of a competitor’s interests. The court likewise found no comparative advertising within the meaning of §§ 3 and 6 UWG, since the increased attractiveness of the search results has no concrete competitive connection to the perfume market.
The Berlin ruling exists in a state of tension with other recent decisions on Google AI Overviews. In May 2026, Munich Regional Court I held that Google bears direct liability as a Stoerer (interferer) for factually false statements in AI Overviews — on the basis of personality rights rather than trademark law. The Frankfurt Regional Court also considered Google potentially liable for false statements in AI summaries. While these decisions concern different areas of law and different factual constellations, they collectively reflect a highly inconsistent approach among German courts.
For brand owners, this means that the question of whether and under what circumstances Google bears trademark liability for the content of its AI Overviews has not yet been decided by a higher court. It is likely that the Berlin case will go to appeal, and that the fundamental question will ultimately need to be answered by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) or even the CJEU. In the meantime, businesses must navigate significant legal uncertainty.
The Berlin ruling is not a blanket exoneration of Google — it is a single-case decision based on specific facts and a specific legal argument. Brand owners who find themselves harmed by AI Overviews should not treat this ruling as a deterrent, but should have their individual situation carefully assessed. The key question is the precise nature of the AI-generated texts: do they appear as mere summaries of third-party sources, or do they claim independent substantive authority? Are the marks used in a descriptive manner, or in a way that implies Google is making its own commercial statement?
Brand owners should also consider the following steps: systematic monitoring of AI search results mentioning their marks; careful documentation of any objectionable AI-generated content, including the full text and surrounding advertising context; and an assessment of whether, in addition to trademark claims, personality rights or unfair competition claims might also be available. As the current case law shows, choosing the right legal basis can be decisive for success or failure.
The ruling of the Berlin Regional Court II from June 1, 2026 represents a first — but by no means final — step toward clarifying the trademark liability of AI-generated search results. The decision to deny trademark use by Google is not inevitable — the opposing view has strong arguments in its favor. Until a definitive ruling from a higher court is available, brand owners are well-advised to monitor and document potential infringements through AI search results and to seek legal counsel in individual cases. The next decision — possibly pointing in the opposite direction — is only a matter of time.
Do you have questions about trademark infringement through AI search results or the enforcement of your trademark rights in the digital space? The lawyers at HUFELD PartGmbB are here to provide comprehensive advice. Get in touch now.
Are you looking for a specific topic?
.png)
.png)