- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in Canada
- with readers working within the Technology and Law Firm industries
- within Consumer Protection, Real Estate and Construction and International Law topic(s)
When we say “hey Siri, get me a pair of Nike shoes” it's easy enough, right?, what if Siri gets it wrong and points you in the direction of a different seller selling “Nyke” shoes? In the age of Alexa, Siri, and Google Assistant, voice technology is changing the way we interact with brands. With millions of people relying on voice assistants for shopping, music, and services, a single misunderstanding can result in confusion and can harm a brand's reputation.
This raises an intriguing legal question: who is liable for trademark infringement when a voice assistant makes a mistake, the technology provider, the third party, or the brand owner?
TRADEMARKS AND CONSUMER CONFUSION
Trademark law shields brands and, too, the clients from confusion. Under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act of 1999, infringement takes place even if there is a likelihood of confusion. Courts have always considered conceptual, phonetic, and visual similarity; however, phonetics dominate voice search. Pronunciations and accents render differences hard to perceive; for instance, "Domino's" and "Dominosh" can be the same. Voice assistants usually offer a single answer, which raises the likelihood of customer confusion.
THE VOICE ASSISTANT PROBLEM
The voice aids such as Alexa or Siri, as opposed to search engines, provide just one definite answer instead of multiple options. One form of infringement already known to courts is when a shopper asks for "Dettol soap" but is directed to a rival product with a similar-sounding name.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES AT PLAY
Three major doctrines arise:
- Initial Interest Confusion – Momentary diversion in the name of the brand is also infringement.
- Sound Marks – Indian law does protect sounds (e.g., Nokia ringtone), highlighting the necessity of phonetic protection in voice commerce.
- Intermediary Liability – Judges ay need to determine whether voice assistants act just as a neutral channels like search engines or whether this role of their in shaping the choices of customers make them a active participant.
Case laws such as Google LLC v. MakeMyTrip (Delhi HC, 2024) and Amazon v. Amway (Delhi HC, 2020) shows that the platforms are not held responsible usually if they just act as a neutral middleman. But if they start deciding or highlighting which results to show, they may lose that legal protection.
Who's Liable When Siri Gets It Wrong?
- Brand Owners: The brand owners must register phonetic equivalents too with the logo and word equivalent and monitor usage.
- Third-Party Sellers: They will be Liable if they exploit similar-sounding marks.
- Voice Assistant Providers: Their liability is debated under the IT Act may apply, but their active role could bring responsibility.
Comparative Perspectives
US: Focuses on initial interest confusion in debates around Alexa's liability.
EU: It is Stricter, often holding platforms liable when they actively shape consumer choices.
India: While there has not been a specific case relating to voice assistants and trademarks in India as of now, the jurisprudence of the country presumes how courts would resolve the matter. The court evaluated whether keyword marketing may lead to deception of consumers in Google LLC v. MakeMyTrip (Delhi HC, 2024) and held that even algorithmic techniques must be closely examined for potential confusion. The liability of e-commerce sites regarding illegal listings was tested in Amazon v. Amway (Delhi HC, 2020). These cases indicate the Indian courts' willingness to stretch the boundaries of intermediary liability. With the pace at which AI commerce is being embraced, a tension is bound to emerge eventually, which would require Indian courts to determine if voice assistants remain neutral intermediaries or become liable in consumer transactions.
PRACTICAL TAKEAWAYS & FUTURE OUTLOOK
To avoid mistakes, brands need to cooperate with platforms in a way that their names are properly identified, and also regularly check their performance and take additional protective steps. While improving AI decreases mispronunciations, bias, preferential algorithms, and paid prioritization will keep manipulating consumer selection. The law has to adapt in asking for openness, blocking unjust brand preference, and guaranteeing consumers consistently get the right brand on demand.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.