
Copyright agreement between music publishers and Anthropic AI
As we discussed in a previous article published on our blog, in October 2023, Universal Music Group Publishing (UMGP), Concord Music Group and ABKCO took legal action against Anthropic, an artificial intelligence startup founded by former OpenAI members. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Nashville, claims that Anthropic infringed copyrights of songs such as “What a Wonderful World” and “Sweet Home Alabama”. The music publishers pointed out that Anthropic's language model, Claude, could accurately reproduce the lyrics of over 500 songs and sought €140,000 in damages for each composition infringed.
It is worth noting that Anthropic is backed by major investors including Amazon, Google and Salesforce.
On 30 December 2024, an agreement between the two parties was formally put in place, thus resolving one aspect of the dispute. Under the terms of the agreement, Anthropic must implement strict measures to prevent its Claude AI model from reproducing song lyrics or generating derivative content based on the music publishers' copyrighted works. This includes technical safeguards to prevent users from prompting the model to disclose copyrighted content.
The music publishers noted that, unlike other platforms that pay royalties to distribute lyrics online, Anthropic used data scraped from websites without proper authorisation and also removed copyright management information. As a result, the agreement allows publishers to notify Anthropic if they believe its safeguards are inadequate, and requires the company to investigate and address any infringements.
This agreement however only settles part of the dispute, as the publishers are still seeking an injunction to prevent Anthropic from using copyrighted lyrics to train future models. A decision on this aspect is expected to be issued in the coming months.
EUIPO rules on the 3D trade mark of Tetra Brik
On 6 December, the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) ruled in case R 12/2024-4 concerning the EU 3D mark SHAPE OF A TETRA BRIK.
In 2004, the Swiss company TETRA Laval HOLDINGS & FINANCE S.A. registered with the EUIPO the trade mark nº 001620566, representing the shape of a Tetra Brik composed of four vertical wall panels and two rectangular panels at the top and bottom, all essentially flat. It also includes four secondary panels delimited by straight vertical lines which converge at their ends into diagonal lines forming hexagons when joined to the upper and lower panels. In addition, it includes a sealing system that crosses the upper surface and extends to two folded corner flaps attached to two of the vertical panels, ensuring leakproof functionality. The mark covered products such as packaging containers and packaging materials made of paper or paper coated with plastic, all within Class 16 of the Nice Classification.
In 2022, the Chinese company Lami Packaging (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. filed an application for a declaration of invalidity based on two arguments. Under Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR, it claimed that TETRA Laval had acted in bad faith in applying for registration of the mark. They also argued that the shape of the mark at issue consisted exclusively of a shape necessary to obtain a technical result. According to Article 7(1)(e)(ii) EUTMR, shapes which are necessary to obtain a technical result cannot be registered as trade marks. Lami argued that the shape features of the packaging were non-distinctive and performed a technical function, which excluded them from trade mark protection. The Chinese company submitted evidence, including PCT application WO1997034809A1 filed on 29 October 1996, two granted US patents and an expert analysis entitled "Optimisation of Tetra Pak's Utility Patent to Maximize the Technical Effect Described", together with an annex focusing on the technical benefits of the shape.
The Cancellation Division invalidated the Tetra EUTM in its entirety. It concluded that the shape of the mark at issue was necessary to achieve a technical result such as storage and handling efficiency, thereby excluding its registration under Article 7(1)(e)(ii) EUTMR. Furthermore, the Division considered that the shape lacked distinctiveness as it was neither unique nor aesthetically distinguishable from other products. Although bad faith was alleged, the Division did not address this issue as the invalidity was justified based on technical functionality.
The Swiss company TETRA Laval appealed the decision to the EUIPO's Fourth Board of Appeal, which found that the essential features of the 3D mark improved the efficiency of the capacity-to-material ratio, ensuring stability and ease of handling. However, following the case law of the General Court, it concluded that not all shapes designed to achieve a technical result meet the criterion of being "necessary to obtain a technical result". The Board pointed out that the assessment should focus on how consumers perceive the function of the shape in the use of the product, rather than on the method of production. In this case, the features of the shape were related to the manufacturing process, but did not directly affect the utility of the product, and therefore did not qualify as a "technical result" under Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the EUTMR.
As regards bad faith, the Chinese company argued that TETRA Laval was trying to artificially extend its intellectual property protection through the trade mark. Nevertheless, the Board of Appeal rejected this argument, noting that there was no evidence of bad faith in the trade mark registration.
Details
- Publication date
- 10 January 2025
- Author
- European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency