When Does a Human Face Become a Trademark? AI-Faces and Trademark Law & Practice in Türkiye

As AI-generated imagery grows more realistic, trademark law is facing an unusual question: can a human face itself function as a trademark?

Trademark protection has traditionally centered on words, logos, shapes and other conventional indicators of origin. Increasingly, however, applicants are seeking protection for signs consisting of nothing more than a highly realistic human face, whether real or artificially generated.

The first instinct is to ask whether the depicted face belongs to a real person or was generated by AI. The more fundamental question trademark offices are now grappling with is different: at what point does a face stop being a picture and start functioning as a trademark?

EUIPO Boards of Appeal addressed in the past this question in a handful of recent decisions, recognizing that a facial image may, in certain circumstances, indicate commercial origin even where the person depicted is not publicly known. The outcome, however, remains highly fact-specific, turning on visual distinctiveness, the overall impression created, and how an average consumer is likely to perceive the sign.

Closer to home, the Turkish trademark register is showing signs of the same uncertainty. In the second half of 2026, we observed several facial image applications that were initially published by TÜRKPATENT for opposition, only for the underlying decision to later be corrected. This kind of course correction suggests that examination practice for this category of marks is still settling, and that applicants should not assume publication alone signals a stable outcome.

Some of these images do not resemble traditional portrait photography. Their posture, gaze, facial expressions and overall visual design create a different impression. Looking at the applicants' fields of activity, one cannot help wondering whether some of these images are intended to function not as portraits, but as digital brand characters designed to interact with consumers.

Some of these applications also appear to have been filed by textile and apparel trademark owners, suggesting that the images in question may instead be "models" intended for use in catalogues, promotional or advertising materials. Of course, there is no public information confirming either use. Could some of these faces eventually serve as the visual identities of AI-powered assistants operating on websites, mobile applications, customer service platforms or retail environments?

The question becomes sharper still in the age of generative AI, which can now produce entirely fictional faces indistinguishable from real ones. Trademark law may soon need to decide whether a face must belong to an actual person to function as a trademark, or whether consumer perception is what matters regardless of whether the face is real.

The debate is far from settled. But one thing is becoming clear: discussions about the distinctiveness of a brand's "digital face" may soon matter just as much as discussions about its logo.

P.s. If you're curious about the trademark images that were first published and later had their decisions corrected (refused), feel free to message us (esra@juniper-ip.com) directly and we'll be happy to share them with you.

Esra Böğürcü Süngerli

September 2026