NON-TRADITIONAL TRADEMARKS: AN EXAMINATION OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK, PROTECTION MECHANISMS, AND INSTITUTIONAL GAPS
Keywords:
Non-traditional trademarks; graphical representation; intellectual property; distinctiveness; secondary meaning; sensory marks; comparative trademark law; TRIPS Agreement; India; European Union; United StatesAbstract
Non-traditional trademarks (NTTs)—which include non-visual trademarks like noises, colors, scents, shapes, and movements—are the new intellectual property protection that goes beyond the traditional visual symbols. This research article discusses the three jurisdictions of India, the European Union, and the United States as the non-traditional trademarks’ multifaceted legal
landscape. By doctrinal analysis of statutory provisions, critical examination of landmark case law, and international comparative evaluation, the article identifies major institutional differences in the recognition and enforcement mechanisms. The study discloses that the trademark law of India is still very much limited by the strict graphical representation rule and inadequate case law, thus, making it very difficult to register sensory marks. The article suggests through the amalgamation of the best international practices and the scrutiny of the potential of non-traditional trademarks to act as source identifiers that legislative reform and procedural harmonisation are necessary to bring India’s protective regime in line with the ever-changing
business realities and the flexibility under the TRIPS Agreement.
References
TRIPS Agreement 1994, Part II, art 15(1); Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165
(1995) (establishing that trademark function requires source identification independent of mark form).
World Intellectual Property Organization, 'Non-Traditional Marks' (WIPO Publication 121, 2009) 3-5
(detailing historical development of trademark doctrine from nineteenth-century visual marks through
contemporary sensory expansions).
Rolf Burkert, 'The Evolution of Non-Conventional Trademarks: From Visual Perception to Multisensory
Brand Identification' (2018) 45 International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 234-267; Vatsala
Sahay, 'Conventionalising Trademarks of Sounds and Scents: A Cross-Jurisdictional Study' (2011) 6
NALSAR Student Law Review 128.
Trade Marks Act 1999 (India) § 2(1)(zb); Rachna R. Kurup & Nimita Aksa Pradeep, 'Non-Conventional
Trademarks in India: The What, The Why and The How' (2020) 1 E-JAIRIPA 131, 135-140.
Anjali Shekhar & Nikhil Jain, 'Beyond Logos: Non-Traditional Trademarks and Their Legal Perspective'
(2025) 4 International Journal of Judicial Law 9, 13-15 (conducting comparative analysis of Indian, US,
and EU frameworks for non-traditional mark protection).
Kurup & Pradeep (n 4) 135-148 (classifying eight categories of non-traditional marks); WIPO Standing
Committee on the Law of Trademarks, 'Classification of Non-Traditional Marks: Report and
Recommendations' (WIPO/STL/2/3, 2006) 4-8
Dev Gangjee, 'Non-Conventional Trade Marks in India' (2010) 22 National Law School of India Review
, 67-75 (identifying doctrinal gaps in Indian jurisprudence regarding non-traditional mark protection and
procedural requirements).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 9-11 (defining non-traditional trademarks through functional capacity for source
identification rather than formal representational characteristics).
World Intellectual Property Organization, 'Non-Traditional Marks: Classification and Representation
Standards' (WIPO/SCT/17/4, 2006) 5-7 (establishing WIPO binary classification of visual and non-visual
non-traditional marks).
TRIPS Agreement (n 1), art 15(1) (establishing foundational definition of marks based on functional
capacity to distinguish goods/services).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 10-12 (providing examples of commercially-significant sound marks and describing
auditory branding strategies); Ken Pyle, 'The Sounds of Brands: Acoustic Signature as Trademark
Protection' (2016) 41 International Journal of Intellectual Property Law 456.
Kurup & Pradeep (n 4) 137-138 (discussing colour mark categories and registration challenges across
jurisdictions); Faye M. Hammersley, 'The Chromatic Trademark: Color Registration, Distinctiveness, and
Competitive Concerns' (2018) 35 International Review of Industrial Property & Copyright Law 201.
Kurup & Pradeep (n 4) 138 (providing shape mark examples and discussing non-functionality
requirements); Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Ltd., Notice of Motion No. 2369 of 2010,
Bombay High Court (2011) (recognising shape marks satisfying distinctiveness and non-functionality
criteria).
Tanusree Roy, 'Registrability of Smell Mark as Trademark: A Critical Analysis' (2018) 4 Journal on
Contemporary Issues of Law 121, 121-130 (analysing olfactory mark registration challenges and
international approaches).
Nathan K. G. Lau, 'Registration of Taste Marks as Trademarks: Legal Possibilities and Practical
Impediments' (2015) 18 Duke Journal of Intellectual Property & Technology 134, 134-160.
Hardik Choudhary, 'Motion Marks as Trademarks in India: Legal Framework and Practical Challenges'
(2021) 8 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Practice 47-61.
Kurup & Pradeep (n 4) 137 (describing texture and hologram mark characteristics and registration status
across jurisdictions).
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (n 1), 514 U.S. 159, 164-170 (holding that colour marks satisfy
Lanham Act requirements provided they acquire secondary meaning).
ibid. 166-168 (noting that Lanham Act's "flexible language" accommodates diverse sign categories and
legislative history demonstrates Congressional intent to provide broad trademark protection).
ibid. 167 (addressing colour depletion argument and noting that colour availability constraints require case-
specific analysis rather than categorical prohibition).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 13-14 (detailing Qualitex precedent influence on subsequent US non-traditional mark
registrations).
Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, Case C-273/00, [2002] ECR I-11737 (establishing
graphical representation criteria for non-traditional mark registration in EU).
ibid. ¶ 55 (articulating Sieckmann criteria: representation must be "clear, precise, self-contained, easily
accessible, intelligible, durable and objective").
ibid. ¶¶ 59-75 (analysing why chemical formulas, written descriptions, and scent samples failed to satisfy
graphic representation requirements).
Shield Mark BV v. Joost Kist, Case C-283/01, [2004] ECR I-14313 (examining whether sound marks
satisfy graphic representation standards).
ibid. ¶ 37-39 (recognising that sound marks could satisfy graphic representation if represented through
musical notation or comparable methodologies).
ibid. ¶¶ 62-68 (establishing that musical notation depicting clef, notes, rests, and rhythm communicates
sound characteristics with requisite clarity and objectivity).
Nokia Corporation v. Unknown, CS(OS) No. 1685/2002, Delhi High Court (2002); Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 17
(discussing Nokia decision and its significance for Indian sound mark jurisprudence).
Nokia Corporation v. Unknown (n 28) (assessing distinctiveness through demonstrated consumer
association and market recognition of Nokia's distinctive ringtone).
Colgate Palmolive Co. & Anr. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 27 PTC 478 (Delhi HC)
(recognising colour combination marks acquiring secondary meaning through long-term commercial use).
ibid. (establishing that colour combinations functioning as trade dress could receive protection upon
demonstrating consumer source association).
Christian Louboutin Sas v. Abu Baker and Others, Delhi High Court [date]; Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 21
(noting Christian Louboutin judgment's restriction of single-colour mark protection in India).
ibid. (applying restrictive interpretation of Section 2(1)(m) requiring "combinations of colours" rather than
single colours).
Trade Marks Act 1999 (India) § 2(1)(zb) (defining trademark with graphical representation requirement and
exemplification of eligible mark types).
Kurup & Pradeep (n 4) 140-143 (critiquing graphical representation requirement as barrier to non-visual
mark registration and examining TRIPS consistency questions).
Trade Marks Rules 2017 (India), Rule 2(1)(k) (defining graphical representation in documentary form
including digitised representations).
Trade Marks Rules 2017 (India), Rule 26(5) (establishing MP3 submission procedures for sound marks
with maximum thirty-second duration).
Draft Manual of Trade Marks Practice and Procedure (India) § 12.2.5 (providing supplementary guidance
on sound mark examination aligned with Shield Mark doctrine).
Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2015] OJ L 341/20 (amending
EUMAR to remove graphical representation requirement and permit flexible representation
methodologies).
ibid., art 4(1)(a) (establishing representation standard permitting varied methodologies suitable for mark
characteristics).
EUIPO, 'Guidelines for Examination of European Union Trademarks: Part B, Section 4, Non-Traditional
Marks' (2017) 4-8 (specifying representation methodologies for sound, colour, shape, motion, and other
non-traditional marks).
ibid. 3-4 (detailing procedural mechanisms enabling flexible non-traditional mark representation whilst
maintaining public notice effectiveness).
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (defining trademark through functional capacity for source identification
without graphical representation prerequisite).
Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding Inc., 696 F.3d 206, 221-222 (2d Cir. 2012) (establishing
that marks whose characteristics provide functional advantages beyond source identification cannot receive
protection under functionality doctrine).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 14 (cataloguing US non-traditional mark registrations including sound marks, colour
marks, shape marks, and motion marks).
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (n 1), 165 (explaining secondary meaning concept requiring
demonstration of consumer association linking mark to specific source); TRIPS Agreement, art 15(3)
(acknowledging distinctive character acquisition through commercial use).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 19-20 (discussing distinctiveness burden for non-traditional marks and requiring
empirical evidence of consumer association).
Trade Marks Act 1999 (India) § 9(1)(a) (prescribing distinctiveness requirement for trademark registration).
Nokia Corporation v. Unknown (n 28) (demonstrating Nokia's distinctiveness through consumer familiarity
studies and widespread device usage establishing sound-to-source association).
Colgate Palmolive Co. & Anr. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (n 30) (establishing colour
combination distinctiveness through market evidence of long-term use and consumer association).
Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Ltd. (n 13) (recognising shape marks satisfying distinctiveness
independent of functional product characteristics).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 15 (noting EUIPO's relatively stringent distinctiveness application for non-traditional
marks).
ibid. 14 (describing USPTO's pragmatic approach to distinctiveness evidence including consumer surveys,
media references, and temporal use factors).
Gangjee (n 7) 75-78 (examining origins of graphical representation requirement in European trademark
doctrine and administrative register requirements).
Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (n 22) ¶ 50 (explaining public notice and clarity rationales
supporting graphic representation requirement).
ibid. ¶¶ 59-61 (explaining why chemical compositions and descriptions fail to represent scents objectively
due to individual variation in olfactory perception).
Choudhary (n 16) 50-53 (discussing motion mark representation challenges and video format
incompatibility with traditional documentary registers).
Gangjee (n 7) 80-82 (critiquing graphical representation requirement as inconsistent with functional
trademark doctrine emphasising source identification).
TRIPS Agreement (n 1), art 15 (using discretionary language "may require" rather than mandatory
language regarding visual perception prerequisites).
Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 (n 39), Recital 13 (explaining reform rationale recognising that non-visual
marks could satisfy public notice functions through adapted representation methodologies).
Kurup & Pradeep (n 4) 146-148 (proposing representation flexibility mechanisms for scent marks including
chemical analysis and reference standards).
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (n 1), 168 (explaining functionality doctrine preventing trademark
protection for characteristics essential to product utility or affecting quality/cost).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 20 (discussing sound mark functionality analysis distinguishing sounds integral to
product operation from purely source-identifying sounds).
ibid. (addressing colour functionality analysis and competitive necessity for particular colours in specific
product categories).
Kurup & Pradeep (n 4) 146 (examining shape functionality requiring analysis of technical necessity versus
artistic design choices).
Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding Inc. (n 44), 221 (addressing aesthetic functionality
doctrine and competitive advantage considerations).
Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Ltd. (n 13) (providing limited analytical framework for
functionality doctrine application to shape marks).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 22-23 (discussing trademark infringement elements and adaptation requirements for
non-traditional mark analysis).
Shield Mark BV v. Joost Kist (n 25) ¶¶ 81-90 (examining sound similarity and minor variations insufficient
to establish infringement if consumers perceived distinct auditory experiences).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 23 (noting increasing reliance on empirical consumer perception evidence in non-
traditional mark infringement determination).
EUIPO (n 41) Part C, Section 3 (providing detailed guidelines for consumer survey design in non-
traditional mark cases).
Trade Marks Act 1999 (India) §§ 34-36 (establishing infringement remedies including injunctive relief,
damages, and destruction of infringing goods).
H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Vijaypal Dhayal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2336 (granting injunctive relief and damages
for trade dress and logo infringement).
Kurup & Pradeep (n 4) 143-144identifying statutory silence regarding non-traditional mark categories and
resulting administrative uncertainty).
ibid. 147 (proposing legislative amendment explicitly recognising non-traditional mark categories).
ibid. 147-148 (recommending procedural amendments establishing category-specific non-traditional mark
submission mechanisms).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 15 (identifying examiner training deficiencies in evaluating non-traditional marks).
Kurup & Pradeep (n 4) 145-146 (noting absence of higher court precedents establishing comprehensive
analytical frameworks for non-traditional mark doctrine).
Shekhar & Jain (n 5) 15-16 (recommending Indian alignment with EU reformed framework whilst
retaining distinctiveness and non-functionality protections).
