OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN PROTECTION OF SOUND MARK UNDER TRADEMARK LAW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37591/rvaf5p36Keywords:
Sound Marks, branding, distinctiveness, graphical representationAbstract
This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the legal and commercial complexities surrounding sound marks, a vital category of non-traditional trademarks increasingly utilized in the era of sensory branding. To address this, the study is structured around three core research questions, examining the jurisdictional variances in distinctiveness and representation criteria, and the specific enforcement hurdles in the digital realm. Finally, the paper addresses the contemporary challenges of enforcement, particularly the impact of digital platforms and the cross-over with copyright law. This paper is based on doctrinal research.
References
1. Timothy Greene, Trademark Hybridity and Brand Protection, 46 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO LAW JOURNAL 75 (2014).
2. Akanksha Tripathi, RISING HORIZONS OF SOUND TRADEMARK, 48 (2023).
3. E. Scott Johnson, Protecting Distinctive Sounds: The Challenge of Digital Sampling, 2 J.L. & TECH. 273 (1987).
4. Nick Pisarsky, PoTAYto-PoTAHto-Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off: Trademark Protection of Product Sounds Note, 40 CONN. L. REV. 797 (2007).
5. Anna L. King & Luke S. Curran, The Hidden Persuader: Sound Marks as Sonic Indicators of Source, 10 LANDSLIDE [i] (2017).
6. Michael L. Baroni, The Sound Marks the Song: The Dimemmas of Digital Sound Sampling and Inadequate Remedies under Trademark Law Commentary, 6 HOFSTRA PROP. L.J. 187 (1993).
7. Greene, supra note 1.
8. King and Curran, supra note 5.
9. Tripathi, supra note 2.
10. Peter Siljendal, The Registration of Mechanical Sounds as Trade Marks.
11. Baroni, supra note 6.
12. Iyanu Lipede, Let’s Hear It for Sound Marks: Trademark Protection in Copyrighted Songs Comments, 16 LIBERTY U. L. REV. 491 (2021).
13. Remi Saidane, Artistic Expression at Risk: The Overlap of Sound Mark Protection and Phonogram Protection in EU IP Law, 8 CAMBRIDGE L. REV. 152 (2023).
14. Siljendal, supra note 10.
15. 199 U.S.P.Q. 560 (T.T.A.B. 1978)
16. Baroni, supra note 6.
17. Greene, supra note 1.
18. Pisarsky, supra note 4.
19. Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA v. H-D Michigan Inc. (1997)
20. Pisarsky, supra note 4.
21. Baroni, supra note 6.
22. T-668/19, Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
23. Alexandros Antoniou, Let’s Take a New Sip: Can the Sound of a Fizzy Drink Be Trade Marked? (Jan. 4, 2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4140706.
24. Id.
25. T-668/19, Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
26. Antoniou, supra note 23.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. Saidane, supra note 13.
30. Pisarsky, supra note 4.
31. Case C-273/00 Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt [2002] ECR I-11737.
32. Pisarsky, supra note 4.
33. Case C-283/01 Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist [2003]
34. Deborah R. Gerhardt & Jon J. Lee, Sound Marks (Mar. 1, 2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4866665.
35. Saidane, supra note 13.
36. Baroni, supra note 6.
37. Tripathi, supra note 2.
38. Johnson, supra note 3.
39. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/madrid-system
40. Tripathi, supra note 2.
41. Elizabeth Vista, Taking Bytes Sound Recordings, Digital Sampling, and the De Minimis Exception Comment, 67 VILL. L. REV. ONLINE 29 (2022).
42. King and Curran, supra note 5.
43. Saidane, supra note 13.
44. Johnson, supra note 3.
45. Lipede, supra note 12.
46. Id.
47. Tripathi, supra note 2.
48. Saidane, supra note 13.
49. Lipede, supra note 12.
50. Id.
51. Justin F. McNaughton et al., EEEEEEEYOOOOOO!: Reflections on Protecting Pitbull’s Famous Grito Essay, 9 NYU J. INTELL. PROP. & ENT. L. 179 (2019).
52. Lipede, supra note 12.
53. McNaughton et al., supra note 51.
