Comparative IP decisions
Where courts agree
A curated selection of the most significant decisions. Not an exhaustive database.
94 decisions19 jurisdictions71 courts12 offices11 acts59 policy papers
| Principle | United States | Europe | United Kingdom | China | Japan | India | South Korea | Australia | South Africa | Latin America | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI | |||||||||||
| ▸Copyright needs a human author; protection follows human creative input, not the machine.1 apex/legislation · 2 appellate · 12 lower/office | 6 | 2 | · | 5 | · | · | · | · | 5 | ||
| ▸To claim rights in AI-assisted work, you must be able to show your creative process.3 lower/office | · | · | 2 | · | · | · | · | · | · | 2 | |
| ▸Only a natural person can be named as an inventor.2 apex/legislation · 4 appellate · 4 lower/office | 2 | 3 | · | · | 7contested | ||||||
| ▸Using protected works to train AI can be lawful under an exception or fair use.2 apex/legislation · 1 appellate · 4 lower/office | 4 | 3 | · | · | · | · | · | 4contested | |||
| ▸An AI system that memorises or reproduces protected works in its outputs can infringe.2 appellate · 3 lower/office | · | 2 | 2 | · | · | · | · | 3 | |||
| ▸Rights holders can reserve their works from AI training, but the opt-out must be machine-readable.2 apex/legislation · 1 appellate | · | 3 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 1 |
| Trademarks | |||||||||||
| ▸An earlier registration is not displaced by someone else's later fame alone.1 apex/legislation | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 1 | ||
| ▸Registering a famous person's name to trade on it can be struck down.1 apex/legislation | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 1 | |
| ▸A trademark that isn't genuinely used can be lost, even by a famous brand.1 appellate | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 1 | |
| ▸Calling it parody or art doesn't protect use of a famous brand as your own brand.1 apex/legislation · 1 lower/office | 2 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 1 |
| Copyright | |||||||||||
| ▸Originality comes from the author's free creative choices, not from effort or labour.4 apex/legislation · 1 appellate | 3 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 3 | ||
| ▸Reusing someone else's work in a way that competes with it needs permission, even if it is online or reworked.4 apex/legislation | 3 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 2 | |
| ▸Linking to or embedding work that is lawfully online is generally not infringement; copying and re-uploading it is.3 apex/legislation · 1 appellate | 2 | 3 | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | 2contested |
| Designs | |||||||||||
| ▸Purely functional shapes are not protected by trademark or copyright; design law or patents must do that job.4 apex/legislation | · | · | · | · | · | · | 4 | ||||
Core holding applies the principle Core holding goes the other way Arguable or tangential (not counted)Narrowed or overruled decisions are left out. Strength counts apex courts and legislation, appellate courts, then lower courts and offices.