Munich District Court: No Copyright Protection for Purely AI-Generated Logos (Judgment of February 13, 2026 – Case No. 142 C 9786/25)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in the creative sector—such as for creating logos. This raises the practical importance of the question of whether such results are protected by copyright and whether users can defend against adoption by third parties. The Munich District Court (AG) ruled in its judgment of February 13, 2026 (Case No. 142 C 9786/25) that logos created by generative AI are not eligible for copyright protection, if no sufficient human creative input is evident.
Under German copyright law, protection requires that a work is a personal intellectual creation (§ 2 para. 2 German Copyright Act – UrhG). A decisive factor is an individual creative imprint by a human being. If a result is predominantly autonomously generated by AI and human contribution is limited to general specifications, this requirement may be lacking.
Initial Case: Logos Generated via Prompt and Later Adopted
The legal dispute was based on the following summary circumstances: The plaintiff had three logos created using generative AI software. The design process involved text-based instructions (prompts), instead of classic graphic manual work. The motifs included, among others, a handshake between two people of different skin colors, an envelope in front of a column-like building, and a laptop with a book and paragraph symbol.
According to his presentation, the plaintiff worked on one motif in particular over a longer period, formulating and refining prompts to achieve a result according to his expectations. He then used the logos on his website. However, an acquaintance adopted the illustrations and used them for his own online presence—without the plaintiff’s consent. The plaintiff demanded cessation and deletion, basing his claim on copyright.
Decision: No Work Quality – Therefore No Claims from Copyright
The Munich District Court dismissed the lawsuit. The logos do not constitute copyright-protected works of visual art within the meaning of § 2 para. 1 no. 4 UrhG; there is a lack of work quality according to § 2 para. 2 UrhG. A copyrighted work requires a personal intellectual creation, that is, a result in which the individual creative achievement of a human is objectively reflected.
Such human creative contribution was not sufficiently evident here. Although the plaintiff created and partly revised prompts, the actual artistic formation was predominantly carried out by the AI. The prompts, according to the court, were rather an impetus or starting point; the creative concretization is in the generative system.
Important: Effort and Detailed Prompts Do Not Replace Personal Imprint
The court also clarified: For protectability, neither the time effort nor the economic expenditure is decisive. Even complex, particularly sophisticated, or developed in many iterations prompts do not automatically establish a personal intellectual creation. Copyright does not protect “effort” or investments as such, but rather the creative individuality.
The decision thus highlights a central guideline of the current law:Only a human can be an author.Where the main creative effort is provided by an autonomous AI and the human contribution is essentially limited to general instructions, copyright protection may be omitted.
Practical consequences: Use by third parties and alternative protection rights
Those who have logos generated solely by AI cannot generallyrely securely on copyright claims for injunction or deletion. However, this does not mean that third parties can always use content “freely.” Depending on the design and application, other rights and claims may be considered, in particular:
- Trademark law (Trademark Act): Protection can arise through registration as a trademark or from usage; in addition, the risk of confusion is relevant.
- Design law (DesignG): A registered design can protect the external appearance (requisites are novelty and individual character).
- Competition law (UWG): In certain situations, claims for unfair imitation or misleading actions may be possible.
- Contract law / Terms of use: The license and usage conditions of the AI tool used can determine who receives which rights to the output or how it may be used.
- Rights of third parties to the training or source material: Depending on the case, conflicts may arise, for example, if the output too closely resembles protected templates or infringes trademark rights.
Note: Especially for logos, trademark law is often the more effective tool in practice, as it focuses on trademark usage and likelihood of confusion – regardless of whether copyright protection exists.
Individual case remains decisive: When AI results can still be protected by copyright
The decision does not mean that AI-supported design can never be protected by copyright. The determining factor remains the individual case. Copyright protection is more likely if a human uses the AI system but the result is characterized by their own creative decisions and substantial editing, for example through:
- targeted selection from many variants according to one’s own design concept,
- own distinctive post-processing (e.g. graphic revision, composition, typography, color system, proportions),
- combination of several elements into an independent overall design,
- embedding in a comprehensive corporate design concept with creative guidelines that become visible in the final result.
What is decisive is whether the personal intellectual creation of the individual isvisibly reflected in the concrete result – not merely the use of a tool or the number of prompt iterations.
Practical recommendations for companies and creatives
- Determine rights strategy early: If a logo is to be exclusively protected, atrademark registration (and possibly additional design protection) is often advisable.
- Documentation: Document creative steps, drafts, editing versions, and selection decisions to prove a human creative contribution.
- Check AI tool conditions: Observe usage rights, exclusivity, liability regulations, and possibly requirements for labelling or credits.
- Similarity checks: As far as possible, check before using a logo whether there are already similar brands/designs (risk of collision).
Legal notice
This contribution serves general informational purposes and does not constitute individual advice. Whether and what rights exist in a specific case (copyright, trademark, design, competition) depends on the specific circumstances of each case.
If you wish to evaluate the protectability of an AI-supported logo or develop a strategy for trademark or design protection, a legal review in individual cases may be sensible.
