Hubbry Logo
Sound trademarkSound trademarkMain
Open search
Sound trademark
Community hub
Sound trademark
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Sound trademark
Sound trademark
Sound trademark
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A sound trademark, sound logo, audio logo, or brand sound[1] is a trademark where sound is used to perform the trademark function of uniquely identifying the commercial origin of products or services.[2]

In recent times, sounds have been increasingly used as trademarks in the marketplace. However, it has traditionally been difficult to protect sounds as trademarks through registration, as a sound was not considered to be a 'trademark'. This issue was addressed by the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,[3] which broadened the legal definition of trademark to encompass "any sign...capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertaking" (article 15(1)).

Despite the recognition which must be accorded to sound trademarks in most countries, the graphical representation of such marks sometimes constitutes a problem for trademark owners seeking to protect their marks, and different countries have different methods for dealing with this issue.

Sound branding

[edit]

Sound branding (also known as audio branding, music branding, sonic branding, acoustic branding)[4] is "the strategic use of sound … in positively differentiating a product or service, enhancing recall, creating preference, building trust, and even increasing sales."[5] Audio branding can tell you whether the brand is romantic and sensual, family-friendly and everyday, indulgent and luxurious, without ever hearing a word or seeing a picture. And it gives a brand an additional way to break through audiences' shortened attention spans.[6]

Sound logos

[edit]
Wikimedia sound trademark (The Sound of Human Knowledge)
Wikimedia's sound logo, an example of a sound logo
Problems playing this file? See media help.

The sound logo (or audio mnemonic) is one of the tools of sound branding, along with the jingle, brand music, and brand theme. A sound logo (or audio logo or sonic logo) is a short distinctive melody or other sequence of sound, mostly positioned at the beginning or ending of a commercial. It can be seen as the acoustic equivalent of a visual logo. Often a combination of both types of logo[7] is used to enforce the recognition of a brand. An example is the T-Mobile logo and ringtone composed by Lance Massey, the Intel logo composed by Walter Werzowa,[8] or the Michelin logo composed by Sixième Son, who also composed the "Samsung Tune".[9]

The sound logo leads to learning effects on consumer's perception of a certain product. A melody is the most memorable sequence of sound, since, when a melody starts, the human brain automatically expects the ending. However, some brands realize the importance the sound their brand can make and attempt to capitalize on its own uniqueness. A good example is the motorcycle brand Harley-Davidson, which, in 1994, filed a sound trademark application for its distinctive V-twin engine sound. It realized that if it could capture its own sound, it could distinguish the brand at every point of customer interaction.[10] Just like a visual logo, the most essential qualities of a sound logo are uniqueness, memorability, and relevancy to the brand promise.[11]

Radio and television stations create their own audio identities using melodic themes to strengthen their brand. Notable examples include the short variations of the BBC Radio 2 or Classic FM jingles. In recent years, television station idents have also introduced their own audio identities to strengthen their brand recognitions.[12]

There are typically four to six steps involved in creating a sound logo:[13][14]

  1. The audio strategy development phase where the brand essence and other foundational elements is confirmed.
  2. The audio touch point analysis phase where all places the brand will come in contact with customers and other stakeholders is identified.
  3. The concept phase where an audio collage is created to help define texture, rhythm, melody, harmony, and instrumentation that best convey the brand values and then the unique sound or piece of music is composed to convey the distinctive brand essence and values.
  4. The test and refine phase to where the combination of sound elements are optimized to ensure that they communicate essence, values, and promise of the brand. In this phase, psycho-acoustic research would be conducted, if needed.[15]
  5. The implementation stage to create the adaptations for each touch point.
  6. The handover phase where an audio style guide is developed to help the supervisor or manager of the brand recommend, plan, and supervise the installation of the audio brand elements into devices, expo booths, displays, call centers, and other places where it will be used. Additionally, the licensing or ownership of the branding elements or all applicable usage rights, depending on the agreement, are formally transferred to brand.

Once completed, the audio elements should be managed just like the rest of a company's brand assets.[16]

Environmental sound design

[edit]

Creating a brand experience using sound is also within the area of sound branding. The opportunities for creating a sound branding experience that conveys a brand essence and soul is possible. Bentley Motors, for instance, recently looked to create a unique brand experience by replacing all interior mechanical sounds with sound that had been created for their Continental GT car.[17] Roland Garros, home of the French Open created an audio identity that is used in its facilities and played during award ceremonies as well as opening and closing ceremonies.[18][19]

In a retail environments, sound branding extends to the use of sound in order to enhance the consumer experience and influence behavior .[20] "For instance, an academic study that took place in a Scotland supermarket found that sales of wines displayed side-by-side and priced similarly responded to music. On days when French music played, French wines outsold German wines. German wines, however, outsold French ones on days when typical German music was playing.[20]

British department store chain Selfridges is one of the notable brands to have enjoyed success with this approach, creating distinct consumer 'zones' within its stores, which change visually and sonically so customers know they have passed into a new department. These zones are often tailored to suit a particular product, customer profile, season or even times of the day and week.[21] The Swedish Mall, Emporia, has also found success using soundscapes to help guide customers.[22] Unibail Rodamco upscale malls have an audio identity that is adapted to their parking lots, entryways, walkways, even chairs and plant walls and extends into their advertising.[23]

Branding sound technology and devices

[edit]

Sound design for mobile phones, ATMs, laptop computers, PDAs, and countless other devices can improve the user experience by making tasks easier and more enjoyable. These sounds can also reveal something about the company that created the experience (and, in the case of personalized ringtones, something about the user themselves).[24][25]

Sound branding also encompasses the use of targeted audio messages by organizations to communicate with customers over the telephone, known as on-hold marketing or on-hold messaging. These messages are typically deployed on an organizations interactive voice response (IVR) switchboard system or when customers are placed on hold and incorporate short, informative voice messages often accompanied by music.

A study commissioned by audio branding specialist PHMG provided insight into consumer perceptions of on-hold marketing. It revealed 70 percent of consumers are put on hold for more than 50 percent of their calls and 68 percent of consumers are put on hold for longer than one minute. When on hold, 73 percent of callers want to hear something other than beeps or silence and 76 percent preferred to hear something other than Muzak.[26][27]

Companies integrate sound branding and audio styles into marketing efforts in several ways — by including the sounds at key points in advertising materials via video-based or sound-based ads both online and via traditional channels like TV and radio. Newer technologies for small recordable devices like the Botski,[28] which is a sticker-based recordable device that can be applied to substrates like paper, cardboard or other packaging and or marketing materials to help brands differentiate themselves beyond visual mediums.

Other forms of sound in branding

[edit]

Sound branding encompasses many other tactics intended to convey organizational or product identity (who an organization is and what it stands for); enhance consumers' experience of a product or service; or extend an organization's relationship with its audience. Another form of sound branding involves an organization's public association with or sponsorship of a musical enterprise—a non-profit music organization, for instance, or perhaps a music artist or group of artists. For example, some companies completely unrelated to music offer free music downloads on their websites. Ostensibly intended to demonstrate the sponsoring organization's good will from a cultural patronage stand point, practices like these also brand the organization by calling public attention to its beliefs, its values, and its aesthetic sensibilities.[13]

It is arguable[by whom?] that sound branding is now using 'subliminal' brand placement in pop song lyrics to echo a corporate slogan, a company's 'Unique Selling Point' or 'brand values' (rather than the 'old fashioned' mentioning of brands / products directly). An example of this would be Pharrell Williams's 2005 song 'Can I Have It Like That' (featuring Gwen Stefani), with the chorus which echoed the Burger King advertising slogan "Have It Your Way".[29]

Audio marketing

[edit]

Audio marketing, also known as on-hold marketing or on-hold messaging, is increasingly being seen as an important element of audio branding. It involves the creation of brand-congruent voice and music tracks, which are used by companies to communicate marketing messages to customers over the telephone. Typically, these messages are played while a customer is waiting on hold or while they are being transferred. They are also frequently used as part of interactive voice response systems designed to handle large volumes of calls.

Different attributes of voice and music, including tempo, tone, pitch and volume, are all taken into account in order to create messaging that reinforce the values conveyed through a company's visual branding.[30]

Changes in consumer perceptions towards audio marketing have played a large part in its adoption. Negative perceptions were traditionally attached to on-hold marketing but a more recent survey conducted by CNN found that 70% of callers in the United States who are made to hold the line in silence will hang up within 60 seconds, while further research by PHMG found 73 percent of consumers want to hear something more than beeps or silence on hold.[31][32][33]

Registration of sound marks in different jurisdictions

[edit]

Australia

[edit]

Graphic representation

[edit]

In Australia, sound trademarks are generally acceptable if they can be represented by musical notation. According to the Australian trademarks Office, an application for a sound trademark which cannot be graphically represented with musical notation must include the following requirements.

  • a graphic representation of the mark (e.g. "CLIP CLOP MOO");
  • a clear and concise description of the trademark (examples are given below);
    • The trademark is a sound mark. It comprises the sound of dogs barking to the traditional tune "Greensleeves" as rendered in the audio tape accompanying the application.
    • The trademark consists of the sound of two steps taken by a cow on pavement, followed by the sound of a cow mooing (clip, clop, MOO) as rendered in the recording accompanying the application.
    • The trademark consists of the sound of a soprano voice singing wordlessly to the tune represented in the musical score attached to the application. The trademark is demonstrated in the recording accompanying the application form.
    • The trademark consists of a repeated rapid tapping sound made by a wooden stick tapping on a metal garbage can lid which gradually becomes louder over approximately 10 seconds duration. The sound is demonstrated in the recordings accompanying the application.
  • a recording of the trademark which can be played back on media which is easily and commonly accessible.

Other requirements are set out in the trademarks Office Manual of Practice and Procedure issued by IP Australia.[34]

European Union

[edit]

In the European Union, Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 40-94 of 20 December 1993 ("signs of which a Community trademark may consist") relevantly states that any CTM may consist of "any signs capable of being represented graphically...provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings". In Shield Mark BV vs Joost Kist (case C-283/01) the EcJ basically repeats the criteria from Sieckmann v German Patent Office (case C-273/00) that graphical representation, preferably means by images, lines or characters, and that the representation must be clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.[35][36]

This definition generally encompasses sound marks, and therefore an applicant for a CTM may use musical notation to graphically represent their trademark. A piece of music—a tune, or a ring tone on a telephone—can be easily registered as a trademark (provided, of course, that it meets the Community trademark tests for registrability and distinctiveness). While tunes are capable of registration, before 2005 noises were not. The sound of a dog barking or the crash of surf cannot be recorded in musical notation and sonograms were not accepted by the OHIM trademark registry. A change in legislation occurred in 2005 so that now the Office accepts sonograms as a graphical representation of a trademark if they are accompanied by an MP3 sound file when filing a trademark electronically.[37]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, the test for whether a sound can serve as a trademark "depends on [the] aural perception of the listener which may be as fleeting as the sound itself unless, of course, the sound is so inherently different or distinctive that it attaches to the subliminal mind of the listener to be awakened when heard and to be associated with the source or event with which it struck".

This was the fairly strict test applied by the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in the case of General Electric Broadcasting Co., 199 USPQ 560, in relation to the timed toll of a ship's bell clock.

More famously, Harley-Davidson attempted to register as a trademark the distinctive "chug" of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle engine. In 1994, the company filed its application with the following description: "The mark consists of the exhaust sound of applicant's motorcycles, produced by V-twin, common crankpin motorcycle engines when the goods are in use." Nine of Harley-Davidson's competitors filed oppositions against the application, arguing that cruiser-style motorcycles of various brands use the same crankpin V-twin engine which produces the same sound. After six years of litigation, with no end in sight, in early 2000, Harley-Davidson withdrew their application.[38]

Other companies have been more successful in registering their distinctive sounds: MGM and their lion's roar; the NBC chimes; famous basketball team the Harlem Globetrotters and their theme song "Sweet Georgia Brown"; Intel and the three-second chord sequence used with the Pentium processor; THX and its "Deep Note"; Federal Signal Corporation and the sound of their "Q2B" fire truck siren; AT&T and the spoken letters "AT&T" accompanied by music; RKO with a combined moving image and sound mark depicting the RKO Pictures radio tower transmitting a Morse-code like signal; and 20th Century Studios with the famous fanfare composed by Alfred Newman.

Examples

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sound trademark

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A sound trademark, also known as a sound mark, is a non-traditional trademark consisting exclusively of a sound or a combination of sounds that identifies and distinguishes the goods or services of a particular source from those of others. Unlike conventional visual trademarks such as words or logos, sound trademarks rely on auditory perception to function as source identifiers, requiring them to be distinctive and non-functional to qualify for protection. Sound trademarks have been registrable in the since 1950, when the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted the first such mark for the —a sequence of three musical notes used by the National Broadcasting Company to signal station breaks. This milestone paved the way for broader recognition of audio elements as protectable , with subsequent registrations including the MGM lion's roar for motion picture services and America Online's spoken phrase "" for computer services. To register a sound mark with the USPTO, applicants must submit an application specifying the mark as a sound, provide a digital audio file (such as an ) reproducing the sound, and include a detailed textual description; the mark must also demonstrate use in commerce or a bona fide intent to use it, while proving inherent distinctiveness or acquired secondary meaning to avoid rejection as generic or descriptive. Internationally, sound trademarks are recognized under frameworks like the (WIPO), which includes sounds as eligible signs for trademark protection in many member states, often through the for streamlined multi-jurisdictional filings. In the , for instance, the (EUIPO) accepts sound marks represented by audio files or musical notation, provided they are graphically represented and capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services. Protection for sound trademarks prevents consumer confusion and unauthorized use, but challenges persist in enforcement due to the subjective nature of auditory distinctiveness and the need for evidence of public association with the brand. Notable modern examples include musician Pitbull's registrations for his catchphrases and ad-libs in entertainment services, highlighting the growing application of sound marks in the music and media industries.

Fundamentals

Definition and Characteristics

A sound trademark, also known as a sound mark, is a non-visual form of consisting exclusively of a sound or combination of sounds, such as tones, melodies, or noises, that serves to uniquely identify the source of goods or services in commerce. Unlike traditional visual or word-based marks, sound trademarks function through auditory perception to distinguish one brand from another, enabling consumers to associate the audio element directly with a specific provider. Key characteristics of sound trademarks include distinctiveness, non-functionality, and the capacity to be recognized as an indicator of origin. To qualify for , a sound must be inherently distinctive or have acquired secondary meaning through extensive use, meaning consumers have come to associate it specifically with the rather than its descriptive or generic qualities. Additionally, the sound cannot serve a functional purpose essential to the product's use, cost, or quality, such as a necessary operational noise; instead, it must act purely as a source identifier. Suitable forms often include short, structured elements like jingles, chimes, or sequences of musical notes, which can be represented graphically via or electronically via audio files for registration purposes, as opposed to longer, more complex musical compositions that may lack the requisite brevity for trademark function. In comparison to traditional trademarks, such as words or logos that rely on visual or textual recognition, sound trademarks depend entirely on auditory cues, which can be more challenging to establish and enforce due to the subjective nature of hearing and . While visual marks may be presumed distinctive if fanciful or arbitrary, sound marks are rarely considered inherently distinctive without evidence of secondary meaning, requiring proof that the sound has developed a unique association with the brand through and exposure. This auditory reliance also means sound trademarks must be memorable and self-contained to avoid confusion in diverse listening environments. Sound trademarks play a vital role in branding by creating an aural signature that fosters consumer loyalty and instant recognition, embedding the identity in everyday audio experiences. By leveraging sound as a multisensory tool, businesses can differentiate themselves in competitive markets, enhancing emotional connections and recall without visual dependency, ultimately strengthening overall .

Historical Development

The concept of sound trademarks originated in the early amid the rise of , where short musical jingles and signature tunes emerged as tools to distinguish broadcasters and sponsors from competitors. These auditory elements served as early forms of brand identification in an era when visual logos were less prominent in audio-only media. A pioneering example is the —a distinctive three-note sequence (G-E-C)—which was conceptualized in 1929 and first broadcast on November 29 of that year by the to mark the end of programs and facilitate station identification. This sound quickly became synonymous with , laying the groundwork for sounds as protectable identifiers. The legal recognition of sound trademarks gained momentum in the mid-20th century, beginning with the ' registration as the first purely audio by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1950, establishing precedent for non-visual marks under the . The 1950s saw further expansion with the advent of television, as radio-era sounds like the transitioned to visual media, reinforcing auditory branding in multi-platform environments and prompting networks to seek formal protections for consistent use across broadcasts. In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. courts and the USPTO solidified this recognition through additional registrations and disputes, such as NBC's successful re-registration of its chimes in 1971 following a 1970 application, which affirmed sounds' eligibility when they functioned as source indicators distinct from mere decoration. Globally, the 1990s marked key legislative advancements; Australia's Trade Marks Act 1995 explicitly expanded registrable marks to include sounds, provided they met distinctiveness criteria, enabling protections for jingles and tones in commercial contexts. Similarly, the European Union's Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 1993, effective from 1 January 1996, harmonized trade mark laws across member states and permitted sound marks through graphical representations like , fostering broader adoption in the . Entering the , the proliferation of propelled sound trademarks into mainstream strategy, with streaming platforms, mobile applications, and amplifying their role in immersive branding experiences. This era witnessed a surge in registrations, as companies leveraged auditory elements for global reach in podcasting, video content, and app notifications. Technological advancements in audio recording and playback—such as the development of digital formats like in the and high-resolution streaming protocols—enabled precise, consistent reproduction of sounds across devices, overcoming earlier limitations in analog fidelity and supporting stronger claims of distinctiveness in protectability assessments.

Sonic Branding

Key Components

Sound logos form a foundational element of sonic branding, consisting of short, memorable audio snippets typically lasting 3-6 seconds, such as simple chimes or tones, that are engineered for immediate recognition across various media touchpoints. These auditory identifiers function as the sonic equivalent of visual , providing a concise, versatile cue that reinforces identity without relying on or complex melodies. Their structural simplicity—often comprising a limited number of notes or sounds—ensures portability and adaptability, allowing deployment in , apps, or device interfaces to evoke instant recall. Jingles and sonic signatures extend this framework by incorporating melodic phrases, usually ranging from 10 to 30 seconds, that align closely with slogans or messaging to enhance emotional and mnemonic associations in contexts. Jingles, as short, catchy tunes, emphasize and repetition to promote memorability, serving a functional role in linking auditory elements to product benefits or values. Sonic signatures, meanwhile, build on these by creating broader thematic consistency, such as variations of a core melody that maintain cohesion across campaigns while adapting to different uses. Together, they operate as extended auditory motifs that deepen consumer engagement beyond mere identification. Ambient and environmental sounds represent non-musical auditory components integrated into a 's identity, encompassing everyday noises like the click of a camera shutter or of a product in operation, which subtly influence user perception and experience. These elements function structurally by embedding brand essence into physical or digital interactions, such as in-store atmospheres or device feedback, to foster familiarity and quality associations without overt promotion. Their role lies in enhancing immersion, where the sound of a product's use becomes a cue that differentiates the brand experientially. Sound marks must be differentiated from general to fulfill their trademark role, prioritizing source identification over artistic or expressive intent to avoid overlap with protections. Unlike copyrighted musical works, which safeguard original creative expressions, sound trademarks require no threshold and focus solely on preventing consumer confusion about commercial origin. This distinction ensures that sonic elements serve as functional brand indicators, with legal frameworks emphasizing distinctiveness in rather than melodic innovation.

Implementation Strategies

Sound trademarks are integrated into branding efforts through techniques that pair auditory elements with visual cues in multimedia campaigns, creating a unified sensory experience that strengthens brand recognition. For example, brands like synchronize their sonic motifs with logo animations in advertisements to evoke warmth and familiarity. This multisensory approach extends to digital and physical touchpoints, such as mobile applications and (IVR) systems, where consistent audio signatures guide user interactions, as implemented by Verizon across its app and customer service platforms. In packaging, audible elements during processes enhance the experiential reveal, contributing to emotional engagement without requiring visual attention. The development process for sound trademarks emphasizes close collaboration among composers, marketers, and lawyers to craft audio assets that align with brand strategy while ensuring legal viability. Composers focus on creating memorable sonic identities rooted in the brand's core values, marketers provide input on audience resonance and market positioning, and IP lawyers review for distinctiveness and registrability to avoid infringement risks. Following initial creation, prototypes are rigorously tested for memorability using surveys that evaluate recognition rates, emotional associations, and avoidance of negative connotations, often employing tools like scales to refine the sound based on feedback. Multi-channel deployment of sound trademarks involves adapting the audio identity for diverse platforms, from traditional television and radio advertisements to emerging digital spaces like podcasts and smart devices, thereby maximizing reach in an audio-first ecosystem. Intel's five-note chime, for instance, has been consistently deployed across broadcast media and since 1994, maintaining its integrity through format-specific adjustments in and volume. Ensuring consistency requires establishing a "sonic DNA"—a set of guidelines defining the sound's key attributes—to preserve coherence, as demonstrated by Mastercard's , which appears in over 95% of its global communications across linear and streaming formats. Effectiveness is gauged through targeted metrics, including brand recall rates and association studies tailored to audio cues, which quantify how well the sound reinforces brand identity and influences consumer behavior. Studies show that sonic elements can boost recall by up to 38%, as seen with ' implementation leading to heightened audience memory in marketing campaigns. Association research, often conducted via surveys and implicit response tests, assesses links between the sound and brand attributes like trustworthiness or excitement, providing data-driven insights for optimization and demonstrating ROI through metrics such as increased purchase intent.

Protectability Criteria

The protectability of a sound as a trademark hinges primarily on its ability to serve as a source identifier for goods or services, rather than describing or denoting them. Under universal trademark principles, sounds must pass the distinctiveness test, which evaluates whether the sound is inherently distinctive—such as an arbitrary or fanciful sequence like a unique chime—or has acquired distinctiveness through substantial use in commerce, establishing secondary meaning where consumers associate the sound exclusively with the mark's owner. Generic or descriptive sounds, such as a standard ring for doorbells, are generally ineligible without evidence of secondary meaning, as they fail to distinguish the source. A key criterion is the non-functionality rule, which prohibits protection for sounds essential to the product's core purpose, use, or quality. For instance, the operational hum of a cannot be trademarked if it is integral to the appliance's function, as this would unduly limit competitors' access to necessary features. This doctrine ensures that trademark rights promote competition by excluding utilitarian elements. Sound trademarks are typically limited to short durations and simple compositions—often under 30 seconds—to emphasize their role as identifiers while minimizing overlap with protection, which safeguards more elaborate musical works requiring and fixation. Additionally, for registrability, the sound must be graphically represented in a clear, unambiguous manner, such as through musical staff notation, onomatopoeic descriptions, or digital waveforms, enabling precise identification and enforcement. Internationally, these criteria align with the (1994), which mandates protection for any sign capable of distinguishing goods or services, including non-traditional marks like sounds, provided they meet national requirements such as graphical representation. However, sounds drawn from the , like familiar folk melodies, pose challenges due to their inherent lack of distinctiveness and inability to be exclusively appropriated.

Registration Requirements

The registration of a sound trademark generally begins with the submission of an application to a national or regional office, or through international systems like the WIPO for multi-jurisdictional protection. Applicants must provide an audio file in a standard digital format, such as or , typically limited to 30 seconds in duration to capture the essential elements of the sound, accompanied by a graphical representation—often in the form of , a , or onomatopoeic description—to enable clear identification and examination. A detailed textual description of the sound's characteristics, including its pitch, , and context of use, is also required to facilitate understanding by examiners and the public. In use-based systems, evidence of commercial application is essential to demonstrate the mark's active role in trade. This includes specimens such as advertisements, product packaging, or where the sound is embedded and associated with goods or services, along with sworn declarations specifying the date and manner of first use in commerce. Intent-to-use applications may defer this requirement until after registration, but proof must be filed within a designated period to avoid cancellation. These elements ensure the mark is not merely theoretical but functions as a source identifier. Following submission, the application proceeds through structured examination stages. An initial formal review verifies compliance with procedural requirements, such as proper formatting and classification of goods or services under the Nice Agreement. A substantive examination then assesses the mark's inherent qualities, including its distinctiveness as referenced in protectability criteria, to determine eligibility for protection. If approved, the application is published in official gazettes or databases, allowing a period—typically three months—for third parties to file oppositions based on prior rights or other conflicts. To maintain a registered sound trademark, holders must adhere to renewal and maintenance protocols. Registrations are generally granted for an initial term of 10 years, extendable indefinitely in 10-year increments upon payment of renewal fees. In applicable jurisdictions, periodic affidavits or declarations of continued use in are required, often every five to ten years, supported by updated specimens to affirm ongoing commercial activity and prevent revocation for non-use. Failure to comply can result in expiration or cancellation of the protection.

United States

In the , sound trademarks are governed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which administers registrations under the of 1946, with sound marks registrable since 1950. To register a sound , applicants must file with the USPTO, specifying the goods or services in International Class format and demonstrating that the sound is distinctive and used in commerce. A mandatory audio deposit is required in an acceptable digital format, such as .wav, .mp3, or .wma, not exceeding 5 megabytes, accompanied by a detailed textual description of the sound to aid examination. For inherently distinctive sounds, registration on the Principal Register is possible without secondary meaning; otherwise, evidence of acquired distinctiveness, such as five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use, must be submitted under Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) Section 1202.15. After examination, if approved, the mark is published in the Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition period, during which third parties may challenge via the Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Key precedents have shaped the protectability of sound marks. The first sound trademark registration occurred in 1950 for NBC's three-note chimes, establishing that non-visual marks could qualify under the if they serve as indicators of origin. In a notable TTAB decision, the board denied General Electric's application for a sound in 1978, ruling it too commonplace to function as a without proof of secondary meaning. More recently, in the 2020s, the USPTO has approved sound marks for digital services, including audio elements associated with streaming platforms like Uber's bell notification sound for ride-sharing apps, reflecting evolving acceptance for technology-driven commerce. Enforcement of sound trademarks occurs primarily through federal courts under Sections 32 and 43(a) of the for infringement, where owners must prove likelihood of confusion, and Section 43(c) for dilution of famous marks. Remedies include injunctive relief to prevent further use, recovery of the infringer's profits, actual , and in cases of willful infringement, or attorney's fees. State courts may handle claims, but federal registration provides nationwide priority and presumptions of validity in litigation.

European Union

The protection of sound trademarks in the is governed by the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) (EU) 2017/1001, which establishes a unitary system for registering trademarks valid across all 27 member states. The (EUIPO) serves as the central authority for filing and administering these EU trademarks (EUTMs), including sound marks, which are defined as signs consisting exclusively of a sound or a combination of sounds capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others. Under Article 4(b) of the EUTMR, sound marks must be represented in a clear, precise, and self-contained manner on the register, typically via an audio file reproducing the sound or using standard staff notation with specified pitch, , and ; mere descriptions or onomatopoeic text are insufficient. This representation requirement, reformed in 2017 to eliminate the prior "graphical" standard, facilitates registration while ensuring public accessibility. Sound marks are subject to absolute grounds for refusal under Article 7(1) EUTMR, including lack of distinctive character (Article 7(1)(b)), where the sound fails to serve as an indicator of commercial origin rather than a common noise; descriptiveness (Article 7(1)(c)), if the sound directly describes a characteristic of the or services; and other prohibitions such as violations or conflicts with protected emblems (Article 7(1)(h)). For instance, everyday sounds like a can opening have been refused for lacking distinctiveness, as they do not depart significantly from normal product usage. Relative grounds for refusal, outlined in Article 8 EUTMR, apply if the sound mark conflicts with earlier trademarks or rights, such as identical signs for similar causing a likelihood of or unfair advantage taken of a reputed earlier mark. These criteria ensure that only sounds with acquired distinctiveness through use or inherently unique qualities are protectable. The registration process for sound marks involves a single application filed electronically with the EUIPO, covering all 27 EU countries for a renewable 10-year term at a base fee of €850. Upon filing, the EUIPO conducts a formal and substantive examination for compliance with representation and absolute grounds, followed by publication in the EU Trade Marks Bulletin if no initial refusals arise. Third parties may file oppositions based on relative grounds within three months of publication, triggering proceedings that typically last 8-18 months; if successful, the application may be partially or fully refused. Decisions can be appealed to the EUIPO Boards of Appeal and, ultimately, the General Court of the European Union for . This centralized process provides uniform protection without needing separate national filings. Notable developments include a surge in sound mark approvals during the 2000s, spurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union's Sieckmann ruling (C-273/00), which clarified representation standards for non-traditional marks and paved the way for greater acceptance of audio-based signs. By 2022, over 389 sound mark applications had been filed at the EUIPO, resulting in 262 registrations; as of April 2025, there were 319 active registrations. In September 2025, the EU General Court upheld the registrability of a two-second by Berlin's company (T-323/23), affirming that short, distinctive sounds can qualify as trademarks. Post-Brexit adjustments, effective from January 1, 2021, mean that EUTMs no longer extend to the , with pre-existing sound marks automatically cloned into comparable UK rights, while new applications require separate UK filings to maintain protection there.

Australia

In Australia, sound trademarks are governed by the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), which expanded the definition of a trade mark to include non-traditional signs such as sounds, colors, and shapes, provided they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of their owner. The administration of trade mark registrations, including sounds, is handled by IP Australia, the government agency responsible for rights. This legislative framework, effective since 1995, allows for the protection of auditory elements as trade marks when they function as badges of origin in commerce. To register a sound trade mark, applicants must provide a graphical representation that clearly depicts the , such as on a stave, onomatopoeic words (e.g., "clip, clop, moo"), or a detailed verbal description outlining the sequence and characteristics of the . Additionally, since the early 2000s, IP Australia has required submission of an audio recording, such as a digital file or , to accompany the graphical representation and ensure accurate examination of the mark's aural qualities. These requirements aim to make the non-visual mark comprehensible to examiners and the public, facilitating its use in legal proceedings. The registration process begins with filing an application via IP 's online system, including the graphical representation, audio file, and specification of or services under the Nice Classification. IP then conducts a substantive examination, assessing the distinctiveness under section 41 of the Trade Marks Act 1995, which requires that the sound not be descriptive or common in the relevant trade and must be capable of the applicant's or services. If accepted, the application is advertised in the Australian Official Journal of Trade Marks, opening a two-month period for third-party oppositions, which may proceed to hearings before the Trade Marks Office or the Federal Court if unresolved. Successful registrations are granted for a renewable term of 10 years from the filing date. A key aspect of Australia's approach to sound trade marks is the emphasis on aural during examination and , considering how the sound is heard in real-world contexts, including potential phonetic similarities across diverse accents and multicultural linguistic environments. For instance, examiners evaluate whether the sound creates a distinctive auditory impression for average consumers, accounting for variations in pronunciation. Notable registered examples include "I'm Lovin' It" (Australian Trade Mark No. 1093230), which demonstrates successful protection of a melodic used in , and the , a five-note sequence registered for mobile devices, illustrating the acceptance of simple, memorable sounds as distinctive marks. These registrations highlight precedents for non-spoken auditory elements meeting distinctiveness criteria without prior use evidence in some cases.

Other Jurisdictions

In , sound trademarks are recognized under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which was further operationalized through the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, allowing for their registration as non-conventional marks. To qualify for protection, applicants must provide graphical representation—such as musical notation alongside an file limited to 30 seconds—and prove acquired distinctiveness via evidence of substantial use in commerce. Registrations have increased in the post-2010 period, including for jingles and audio elements in the entertainment industry. In , the amended Trademark Law of 2019, effective from November 2019, enables the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to accept sound trademarks as part of non-traditional protections. Applications typically involve short audio clips, submitted as digital files with descriptions to ensure clarity and distinctiveness. However, remains challenging amid prevalent counterfeiting, with administrative and judicial actions often complicated by the scale of online and physical infringements. Canada introduced explicit support for sound trademarks through amendments to the Trademarks Act that took effect on June 17, 2019, classifying them among non-traditional marks eligible for federal registration. These changes eliminated prior barriers, such as mandatory pre-use declarations, streamlining filings for audio elements like jingles. Post-Brexit, the aligns with its pre-EU framework under the Trade Marks Act 1994, permitting sound trademarks if graphically represented (e.g., via spectrograms or notations) and inherently or acquiredly distinctive. Since January 2021, the UK Office has continued accepting such marks independently, with a small but growing number of post-Brexit registrations demonstrating ongoing viability. Globally, the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) supports extensions of sound trademarks to participating members, provided the originating jurisdiction recognizes them, enabling streamlined international protection through a single application. In , acceptances have risen in the 2020s, with countries like , , and routinely registering sounds; Brazil's National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) is advancing procedures for sound marks under its 2023-2026 strategic plan, signaling broader regional adoption.

Notable Examples and Cases

Famous Sound Trademarks

Sound trademarks have become integral to brand identity in media, , and sectors, where distinctive audio cues instantly evoke recognition and loyalty among audiences. These sonic elements, often short and memorable, serve as auditory that reinforce visual branding and enhance without relying on words or images. In the media industry, the —a three-note sequence of G, E, and C—stand out as one of the earliest and most iconic examples, registered by the National Broadcasting Company in the United States in 1950 as the first purely audible service mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This chime, originally developed in the and refined over decades, signals program transitions and has been played billions of times, contributing to NBC's enduring auditory presence in . Similarly, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's (MGM) lion roar, originating in the with the studio's founding, was registered as a sound mark in the U.S. in 1986 (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,395,550) and enjoys global protection, accompanying film openings worldwide and symbolizing cinematic grandeur. Consumer goods brands have also leveraged sound trademarks to differentiate products in competitive markets. Intel's "bong"—a five-note audio signature composed in 1994—was registered as a U.S. in 2000 (Reg. No. 2,315,261) and has become synonymous with , appearing in advertisements to underscore processor performance. For , the sound of a opening with a "pop" followed by the fizz and pour into a forms a core part of its sonic identity, ed in the U.S. for the sounds associated with opening and pouring, to capture the refreshing experience of consumption, as highlighted in marketing campaigns emphasizing these everyday sounds. In technology and services, Netflix's "ta-dum"—a dramatic two-note sting introduced in 2015—serves as an auditory registered as a sound mark (U.S. Trademark Serial No. 86/959,878; Reg. No. 5,194,272), marking the start of viewing sessions and building anticipation for content across its global platform. While (now X) has explored chirp variants in app notifications and branding audio, these elements draw from its visual logo without a standalone registered sound , focusing instead on evoking quick, conversational interactions. Recent examples include musician Pitbull's registrations for his catchphrases and ad-libs (e.g., "Mr. Worldwide") as sound marks in services, highlighting the growing application in industry. The commercial impact of these sound trademarks is evident in their ability to boost brand recall, with studies showing high association rates; for instance, Intel's bong achieves over 90% recognition among consumers, demonstrating how sonic cues can embed brands deeply in memory and drive loyalty more effectively than visual elements alone. In the 2020s, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has issued rulings on sound mark similarity, applying audio-specific confusion tests. These decisions highlight evolving TTAB standards for evaluating phonetic and rhythmic overlap in opposition proceedings. In the , the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (now EUIPO) has opposed numerous registrations for lack of distinctiveness; a key example is the 2023 rejection of a short , overturned in 2025 by the General Court in (BVG) v. EUIPO, which upheld a four-note jingle as protectable due to its catchy rhythm, marking a shift toward broader audio eligibility. In the EU, the General Court in Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings v EUIPO (2021) upheld refusal of a sound mark for the sound of a can opening followed by silence, due to lack of distinctiveness. Internationally, the UK's Office rejected Liverpool FC's 2019 application to the "Allez Allez Allez" soccer , citing prior use by multiple clubs and generic nature, preventing monopoly over fan-generated audio traditions in contexts during the 2010s. In , disputes over generic ringtones have arisen, with IP refusing protection for standard rings as non-distinctive in line with 2016 precedents, contrasting Nokia's successful 2007 registration of its iconic tune, which survived oppositions by demonstrating acquired uniqueness. Key lessons from these precedents revolve around the "likelihood of confusion" criteria for audio marks, where courts analyze overall auditory impression, including pitch, , , and , rather than isolated notes. For example, the EU General Court's BVG decision emphasized that even brief sounds can indicate origin if memorable, while TTAB tests incorporate spectrographic to compare sonic elements. Evolving precedents address digital remixes, recognizing that alterations like tempo shifts in user-generated content may still infringe if they evoke the original mark's commercial impression, as noted in recent analyses of audio filing advancements.

Challenges and Future Directions

Enforcement Issues

Enforcing sound trademarks presents unique practical difficulties due to their auditory nature, which complicates detection, proof, and remediation compared to visual marks. Owners must actively monitor for unauthorized uses across diverse media, but identifying infringements in , such as videos or online remixes, or during live events like concerts and broadcasts, is particularly challenging because audio elements can be embedded subtly or altered without clear visual cues. To address this, trademark holders often rely on specialized monitoring services that scan digital platforms and audio databases for potential matches, though these tools may miss variations in playback speed, pitch, or context that still constitute infringement. Proving infringement requires demonstrating a likelihood of confusion, where the accused is likely to mislead the public about the source of goods or services, but this is harder for sounds than for logos due to subjective auditory perception. Courts typically accept consumer surveys as key evidence, where participants are exposed to the sounds and asked about brand associations, but designing reliable surveys for audio stimuli demands expertise to avoid biases like leading questions or small sample sizes. Additionally, alterations such as remixes, sped-up versions, or partial incorporations can evade direct comparison, forcing owners to show that the modified sound retains enough similarity to cause despite changes. Available remedies mirror those for traditional trademarks, including preliminary and permanent injunctions to halt unauthorized use, as well as monetary damages calculated based on the defendant's profits, the plaintiff's actual losses, or reasonable royalty rates equivalent to lost licensing fees for the sound's commercial exploitation. Courts may also order the destruction of infringing materials, such as audio files or devices embedding the sound, and award attorney's fees in exceptional cases of willful infringement. Cross-border enforcement is facilitated by international treaties like the , which allows centralized registration and opposition in multiple jurisdictions, but territorial limitations and varying standards for sound mark protectability often necessitate local litigation or cooperation through the Paris Convention for mutual recognition of priority rights. Significant gaps in coverage arise from discrepancies between public performances and digital streams, where sound trademarks used in live events may fall under performance licensing regimes that prioritize quality control under trademark law, while streaming platforms like Spotify operate under collective copyright licenses that do not always address source identification. Overlaps with copyright further complicate enforcement, as many sound marks incorporate musical elements protected as original compositions or recordings, potentially limiting concurrent trademark claims under interpretations of the Dastar decision that bar "passing off" suits when copyright remedies are available, leaving owners to navigate dual regimes without clear guidance on licensing or quality assurance for embedded audio. The integration of (AI) and generative tools is transforming the creation of sound trademarks, enabling the development of AI-composed jingles and audio elements tailored for branding. These tools assist in generating unique sonic identities by analyzing and consumer preferences to produce customized sounds, such as adaptive audio motifs for digital campaigns. However, ownership of AI-generated sound marks remains tied to involvement, requiring substantial and direction for registrability and . This approach aligns with broader IP principles, ensuring that applicants demonstrate oversight to avoid invalidation, while AI enhances efficiency in trademark searches and application drafting for audio elements. Digital expansions are extending sound trademark protections into virtual environments, including metaverses and (VR) platforms, where immersive audio experiences demand robust IP safeguards. Brand owners are increasingly registering sound marks for use in VR simulations and interactions, such as spatial audio cues in virtual events, to prevent unauthorized replication in digital spaces. Similarly, (NFT) audio trademarks are gaining traction, treating NFTs linked to proprietary sounds—like exclusive audio collectibles—as protectable goods under trademark law, as affirmed in recent U.S. rulings recognizing digital assets' eligibility for coverage. Integrations with streaming platforms further amplify this trend, allowing sound marks to be embedded in algorithmic playlists and personalized audio feeds, fostering seamless brand recognition across online ecosystems. Efforts toward global harmonization of sound trademarks are accelerating through the (WIPO), which continues to promote standardized protocols under the Madrid System to facilitate international registrations of non-traditional marks, including audio elements. This push addresses varying national requirements, enabling easier cross-border protection amid rising filings in emerging markets. In and Africa, trademark registrations have seen growth in certain markets between 2024 and 2025; for instance, reported a 9.3% increase in overall trademark applications in 2024, while published a sound mark on its new online portal in late 2024. These developments reflect WIPO's advocacy for inclusive IP frameworks that accommodate audio branding in diverse jurisdictions. A angle is emerging in trademark strategies, with brands incorporating eco-friendly audio designs, such as low-energy profiles optimized for energy-efficient devices to minimize environmental impact during playback. This aligns with post-2023 IP trends influenced by AI litigation, particularly in the music sector, where lawsuits over generative AI's use of copyrighted audio have heightened scrutiny on sustainable and ethical creation practices. Green trademarks, including those for sustainable audio branding, are proliferating as certification marks that verify environmentally conscious production, helping companies differentiate in a market increasingly valuing low-carbon IP assets. These trends underscore a shift toward trademarks that not only protect sonic identity but also signal corporate responsibility.

References

  1. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/soundmarks/trademark-sound-mark-examples
  2. https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_15.html
  3. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/mark-drawings-trademarks
  4. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/trademarks
  5. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/smell-sound-and-taste-getting-a-sense-of-non-traditional-marks-36622
  6. https://www.marshallip.com/insights/music-to-your-ears-best-practices-for-prosecuting-sound-mark-applications/
  7. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=lu_law_review
  8. https://guidelines.euipo.europa.eu/1922895/1927364/trade-mark-guidelines/14-sound-marks
  9. https://aaronhall.com/sound-marks-in-trademarks-an-overview/
  10. https://www.altlegal.com/blog/behind-the-jingles-legal-strategies-to-protect-sound-trademarks/
  11. https://www.commerciallitigationupdate.com/recent-noise-over-acoustic-trademarks
  12. https://techandmedialaw.com/sound-trademarks/
  13. https://www.theiplawblog.com/2009/11/articles/trademark-law/sound-marks-registration-basics/
  14. https://www.lemlerip.com/blog/what-is-a-sound-trademark-and-why-does-it-matter/
  15. https://grabbelaw.com/grabbeblog/b/the-benefits-of-sound-trademarks
  16. https://nbcchimes.info/nbcorigin.php
  17. https://durenberger.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/CHIMES-HISTORY-HARRIS.pdf
  18. https://jbmusicgroup.com/blog/unraveling-the-evolution-of-sonic-branding
  19. http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademark/6.-sound-auditory-trade-marks
  20. https://patentpc.com/blog/sound-trademarks-in-film-and-entertainment-protecting-iconic-audio
  21. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/bitstreams/2a240267-77b8-4f61-84a7-dcfaa920bead/download
  22. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=bb_etds
  23. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/5072/research.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
  24. https://www.iam-media.com/global-guide/innovation-invention-yearbook/2022/article/understanding-non-traditional-trademark-protection
  25. https://darkhorse.law/trademark-sound-jingle/
  26. https://www.langpatentlaw.com/trademarks/Color-Sound-and-Scent-Marks
  27. https://www.briffa.com/blog/can-you-trade-mark-a-sound/
  28. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_121_2009_01.pdf
  29. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04_e.htm
  30. https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/71/8/702/6645926
  31. https://www.novagraaf.com/en/insights/how-register-sound-mark-eu
  32. https://www.iiprd.com/how-to-sound-trade-marks-register-explain-with-examples/
  33. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-process
  34. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/trademarks/law/Trademark_Statutes.pdf
  35. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/ttab/initiating-new-proceeding
  36. https://uspto.report/TM/90232998
  37. https://www.sta-law.com/2021/01/damages-in-federal-trademark-infringement-lawsuits/
  38. https://www.uspto.gov/page/about-trademark-infringement
  39. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R1001
  40. https://guidelines.euipo.europa.eu/1803468/1789996/trade-mark-guidelines/2-5-sound-marks
  41. https://guidelines.euipo.europa.eu/1803468/1788810/trade-mark-guidelines/3-absolute-grounds-refusal
  42. https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/trade-marks/after-applying/opposition
  43. https://inventa.com/ip-news-insights/opinion/hitting-right-note-sound-trademarks-euipo
  44. https://cosmovici-ip.com/news/sound-of-success-eu-court-rings-in-a-new-era-for-sound-marks/
  45. https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/trade-marks/what-are-trade-marks
  46. http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademark/3.-representation-of-the-trade-mark---general
  47. http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademark/2.-representing-non-traditional-signs
  48. https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/trade-marks/how-to-apply-for-a-trade-mark
  49. https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/trade-marks/how-to-respond-to-an-opposition
  50. http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademark/6.-factors-to-consider-when-comparing-trade-marks
  51. https://wrays.com.au/insights/industry-insights/sound-strategies/
  52. https://www.obhanandassociates.com/blog/safe-and-sound-protecting-sonic-identities-as-trademarks-in-india/
  53. https://ssrana.in/articles/importance-and-challenges-of-protecting-a-sound-mark-india/
  54. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/trade-marks-laws-and-regulations/china
  55. https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/global-guide/anti-counterfeiting-and-online-brand-enforcement/2020/article/procedures-and-strategies-anti-counterfeiting-china
  56. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/en/trademarks/practice-notices/non-traditional-trademarks
  57. https://cassels.com/insights/amendments-to-canadas-trademarks-act-to-come-into-force-june-2019/
  58. https://www.mewburn.com/news-insights/navigating-the-sonic-maze-overcoming-the-challenges-with-registering-sound-marks-in-the-uk
  59. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-455-2022-en-guide-to-the-international-registration-of-marks-under-the-madrid-protocol.pdf
  60. https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/non-traditional-trade-marks-latin-america-2023-10-23_en
  61. https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/central-de-conteudo/noticias/inpi-divulga-versao-em-ingles-do-plano-estrategico-2023-2026/inpi-2023-2026-strategic-plan.pdf
  62. https://bayarearadio.org/history/chimes
  63. https://www.juscorpus.com/trademarking-the-invisible-the-legal-identity-of-sound-in-branding/
  64. https://investors.coca-colacompany.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/103/phsst-clink-clink-glug-glug-glug-fizzzz-gulp-ahh-make-those-sounds-and-you-could-star-in-the-new-sounds-of-coca-cola-commercial
  65. https://www.20k.org/episodes/netflix
  66. https://blog.mikelegal.com/trademark/a-brief-history-of-the-iconic-twitter-logo/
  67. https://www.resonance-sounddesign.com/statistiques-en/
  68. https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/law/recent-case-law/general-court-confirms-distinctiveness-of-the-jingle-for-transport-services
  69. https://talksport.com/football/580103/liverpool-trademark-allez-allez-allez-song-six-clubs/
  70. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/sound-of-a-standard-alarm-or-telephone-ring-too-banal-to-be-a-trade-mark-says-court
  71. https://gevers.eu/blog/non-conventional-trademark-part-3-sound-marks/
  72. https://patentpc.com/blog/how-to-enforce-non-traditional-trademarks-against-infringement
  73. https://patentpc.com/blog/protecting-unique-sounds-a-guide-to-sound-trademark-registration
  74. https://imslegal.com/services/likelihood-of-confusion-surveys
  75. https://aaronhall.com/trademark-cross-border-legal-issues/
  76. https://heilbutllp.com/2025/01/what-to-consider-when-using-ai-in-trademark-practice/
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212473X25000100
  78. https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/9th-circuit-marches-forward-to-the-future-finding-digital-assets-are-protected-under-trademark-law
  79. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/world-intellectual-property-indicators-2024-highlights/en/trademarks-highlights.html
  80. https://sabaip.com/saudi-arabia-first-sound-trademark-published/
  81. https://ficpi.org/ficpi-news/world-ip-day-2025-sound-marks-are-becoming-increasingly-impactful
  82. https://ebizfiling.com/blog/trademark-registration-trends-india-2025/
  83. https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2025/01/the-challenges-of-green-branding
  84. https://clarivate.com/intellectual-property/blog/the-role-of-trademarks-in-the-sustainability-revolution-insights-from-our-recent-webinar/
  85. https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/03/sound-litigation-major-labels-take-ai-music-generators/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.