INTRODUCTION
Imagine identifying a brand not through its name or logo, but through a mere second of sound. That unmistakable “ta-dum” that echoes just before your Netflix binge[1], or the rhythmic chime that plays whenever you power up a Windows computer — these are more than noises. They are strategically crafted sonic identities, known as sonic logos or sound marks, that have become pivotal tools in modern branding. In a world where consumers are bombarded by visuals, sound offers a visceral, often emotional shortcut to brand recognition. But as their commercial value grows, so does the question of how best to protect these sonic signatures. Should they fall under copyright, trademark, or a hybrid of both?
THE CONCEPT OF SONIC LOGOS
Sonic logos are short, distinctive sound sequences uniquely associated with a specific brand. They transcend language barriers and are immediately memorable, tapping into the psychology of sound and emotional recall. These auditory icons are not jingles, which are often longer and lyrical, but rather concise auditory identifiers designed to cement a brand in the consumer’s mind. As brands increasingly leverage sound to create multisensory experiences — in podcasts, voice assistants, and interactive ads — sonic logos have taken centre stage.
Netflix’s “ta-dum,” Intel’s five-note chime[2], and McDonald’s “I’m lovin’ it” jingle (along with the musical intro) are not only instantly recognisable but also legally protected assets. Intel, for instance, registered its sound as a trademark in the U.S. after a study revealed that over 90% of people could recognise the brand simply by hearing the chime. Similarly, Yahoo! successfully registered its yodel sound in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, [3] signalling that the idea of auditory brand identity is gaining global traction.
LEGAL FOUNDATIONS AND RELEVANT PRECEDENTS
In the United States, sound marks are protected under the Lanham Act[4], which allows registration of any mark that distinguishes goods or services. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) [5]has accepted numerous sound marks, including NBC’s chimes (the first recognised sound mark in the U.S., registered in 1978) and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s (MGM) roaring lion. The test here is distinctiveness — whether the average consumer associates the sound with a single source. In In re General Electric Broadcasting Co.[6], the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) emphasised that a sound can be registered if it functions as a mark and is not merely ornamental or functional.
Copyright law in the U.S., governed by the Copyright Act of 1976, [7]protects original musical compositions. This covers the creative aspect of sonic logos, such as melody and arrangement. However, copyright does not safeguard the source-identifying function that trademark does, nor does it provide indefinite protection. This duality has created an overlap that courts and creators are still learning to navigate.
In India, Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999[8], recognises sound marks. The first such registration was Yahoo!’s yodel, followed by ICICI Bank’s musical logo. While copyright in India, governed by the Copyright Act of 1957[9], protects original compositions, it is less commonly used to guard short sounds due to challenges in proving originality and authorship in brief works. There is a clear preference among brands for trademark protection, largely due to its enduring nature and strong association with commercial identity.
The UK follows a similar trajectory. Under the Trade Marks Act, 1994[10], sound marks can be registered with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO)[11]. However, in 2003, the European Court of Justice in Shield Mark BV v. Joost Kist[12] held that a sound can be represented graphically and thus qualify as a trademark if it is clear, precise, self-contained, and accessible. This decision opened the door for sonic branding across Europe but also set high standards for what qualifies as distinctive.
INTERSECTION OF COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK
The intersection of copyright and trademark protection creates a complex legal landscape for sonic logos. While copyright protects the artistic aspect, it does not serve the commercial function of indicating source. Trademark, conversely, does not protect creative expression per se but ensures exclusivity in market identification.
Take, for instance, the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co.[13], where MGM successfully argued trademark infringement over the unauthorised use of its lion’s roar. Though originally a creative recording, it had become so tied to the brand that its use in advertising by another company was deemed misleading.
The challenge arises when creators attempt to claim both protections. Courts are cautious of dual monopolies that could overreach and stifle innovation. However, the need for hybrid protection is increasingly being recognised, particularly for assets like sonic logos that function both as creative works and commercial identifiers.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: INDIA VS. USA AND UK
In India, registration of sound marks remains rare and procedurally unclear. The Indian Trade Marks Registry requires a written description and graphical representation, often in musical notation, along with an audio clip. However, due to a lack of precedent and awareness, many brands hesitate to pursue this avenue.
In contrast, the U.S. has a relatively developed jurisprudence and administrative infrastructure for registering sound marks. The Lanham Act does not distinguish between types of trademarks and has accommodated sound marks comfortably. The U.S. also provides an easier interface and public database through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for reviewing accepted sound marks.
The UK, aligned with EU standards pre-Brexit, offers a middle ground. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)[14] permits sound mark registration with strict representation criteria. Post-Brexit, the UKIPO continues to accept sound marks but maintains rigorous standards for distinctiveness and clarity. India, while progressing, could benefit from clearer guidelines and awareness campaigns to help creators protect their auditory identities.
CASE STUDIES: BRAND PRACTICE AND PROTECTION
Intel’s five-note sonic logo is a case in point. Developed in the 1990s, it became one of the most recognisable audio signatures worldwide. Intel registered the sound mark in multiple jurisdictions and invested heavily in its marketing. The consistency in use across ads, devices, and events reinforced its trademark status.
Netflix’s “ta-dum” is another example. The company hired a sound designer to create a short, dramatic burst that evoked cinematic anticipation. Though not yet widely registered as a trademark, Netflix claims copyright over the composition and uses it consistently to reinforce its brand identity.
McDonald’s “I’m lovin’ it” jingle merges slogan and music. While the slogan is trademarked, the musical arrangement itself could fall under copyright. This illustrates how brands often split their protections across regimes to maximise control.
These case studies show that sound branding is not accidental — it’s strategic, deliberate, and increasingly protected across multiple legal regimes, though inconsistently applied depending on jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
The rise of voice-first interfaces, smart speakers, and immersive digital media has positioned sound as a powerful branding tool. In the future, sonic logos will not just play before a film or during an ad; they will activate in the background of AR environments, during AI interactions, and inside metaverse platforms.
As such, there is a pressing need for cohesive, globally harmonised frameworks to protect sound branding. India, in particular, must refine its procedural clarity and expand awareness. The future lies in a hybrid regime that honours both the artistic and commercial value of sonic logos, providing robust yet flexible protection.
Sonic branding is no longer the fringe domain of a few tech companies. It is becoming as central to brand identity as a name or logo. And if the law evolves to keep up, the next time you hear a sound and immediately know the brand, it won’t just be good marketing — it’ll be smart law.
Author(s) Name: Anushrii Gupta (Nirma University)
References:
[1] Samanta Zingariello, ‘Where did the Netflix “Tudum” sound come from?’ Istituto Marangoni (2024) <https://www.istitutomarangoni.com/en/maze35/industry/where-did-the-netflix-tudum-sound-come-from> assessed 9 June 2025
[2] Bong, Intel invents an impactful sound identity’, Audiospheric (2023) <https://www.audiospheric.com/en/bong-intel-invente-lidentite-sonore-impactante> accessed 9 June 2025
[3] Trade Marks Journal No 1390, 2006 (India) — Yahoo! yodel registration.
[4] Lanham Act, 15 USC §§ 1051–1141n (1946).
[5] United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), <https://www.uspto.gov> assessed 9 June 2025
[6] In re General Electric Broadcasting Co, 199 USPQ 560 (TTAB 1978).
[7] Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC § 101 et seq
[8] Trade Marks Act 1999 (India), s 2(zb)
[9] Copyright Act 1957 (India)
[10] Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK)
[11] United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), <https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office> assessed 9 June 2025
[12] Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist (t/a Memex) (C-283/01) [2003] ECR I-14313.
[13] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc v American Honda Motor Co, 900 F Supp 1287 (CD Cal 1995).
[14] European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), <https://euipo.europa.eu> assessed 9 June 2025
