Motion Marks Registration.
1. Concept of Motion Marks
A motion mark is a non-traditional trademark consisting of a movement or sequence of movements that distinguishes the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others. Unlike static marks (words, logos), motion marks rely on dynamic visual change over time.
Examples include:
A moving logo animation
A specific opening animation shown before a movie
A repetitive movement used in advertising or digital interfaces
2. Legal Recognition of Motion Marks
India
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not expressly mention motion marks.
However, Section 2(1)(zb) defines a trademark broadly as a mark capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing goods or services.
With Rule 26(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, India allows electronic filing with video representation, making registration of motion marks legally possible.
International Position
Motion marks are expressly recognized in jurisdictions like:
EU (EU Trade Mark Regulation)
USA (Lanham Act practice)
Japan and South Korea
3. Requirements for Registration of Motion Marks
To be registrable, a motion mark must satisfy:
Graphical Representation
Through sequential still images
Or video files with clear movement description
Distinctiveness
The movement itself must function as a source identifier
Not merely decorative or functional
Consistency
The movement must be fixed and uniform
Not variable or random
Non-functionality
The motion should not be technically necessary for the product’s operation
4. Case Laws on Motion Marks
Case 1: Ford Motor Company – Moving Blue Oval (USA)
Facts
Ford sought trademark protection for a rotating and shimmering animation of its famous blue oval logo used in digital advertisements and infotainment systems.
Issue
Whether a logo that moves in a specific sequence qualifies as a trademark distinct from its static version.
Held
The USPTO accepted that motion adds a new dimension of distinctiveness.
The animated sequence was consistent and recognizable.
Legal Principle
A motion mark can coexist with a static trademark if the movement itself acts as a distinct source identifier.
Significance
This case confirmed that animation does not dilute trademark protection, but can enhance it.
Case 2: Lamborghini – Opening Scissor Doors (EUIPO)
Facts
Lamborghini applied to register the distinct upward opening motion of its scissor doors as a motion mark.
Issue
Whether a movement that is part of a product design is registrable as a trademark.
Held
Registration was refused.
The motion was found to be functional and intrinsic to the vehicle design.
Legal Principle
Functional movements are excluded from trademark protection.
Motion marks must not give a technical advantage.
Significance
This case draws a clear line between design patents and motion trademarks.
Case 3: Nokia – Handshake Animation (EU)
Facts
Nokia sought protection for a short animation of two hands reaching out and shaking, used in brand communication during device startup.
Issue
Whether abstract human motion can serve as a trademark.
Held
Registration was granted.
The motion was symbolic, distinctive, and unrelated to product functionality.
Legal Principle
Motion marks may be abstract or symbolic, not necessarily product-based.
Significance
The case established that emotional or conceptual movement can qualify as a trademark.
Case 4: DreamWorks – Boy Fishing on the Moon Animation
Facts
DreamWorks claimed trademark rights over its introductory animation showing a boy fishing while sitting on the moon.
Issue
Whether a cinematic animation sequence qualifies as a motion trademark.
Held
The animation was recognized as a motion mark.
It had acquired strong secondary meaning through continuous use.
Legal Principle
Long-term and consistent use can establish acquired distinctiveness for motion marks.
Significance
This case demonstrates that introductory brand sequences are strong candidates for motion mark protection.
Case 5: Microsoft – Windows Flag Animation
Facts
Microsoft applied to protect the animated waving Windows flag used during system boot-up.
Issue
Whether a simple animation can be sufficiently distinctive.
Held
Trademark protection was granted.
The animation was universally associated with Microsoft.
Legal Principle
Simplicity does not negate distinctiveness if consumer association is strong.
Significance
The case shows how software-based movements are registrable as trademarks.
Case 6: Ferrari – Spinning Prancing Horse (EU)
Facts
Ferrari attempted to register a slow rotational animation of its prancing horse logo used in digital branding.
Issue
Whether adding motion to a famous logo creates a separate trademark.
Held
Accepted as a motion mark.
Movement was consistent and not functional.
Legal Principle
Motion marks may be derivative yet independent trademarks.
Significance
The case emphasizes the evolution of branding in digital media.
Case 7: Snapchat – Ghost Transformation Animation
Facts
Snapchat sought registration of its ghost logo transforming into different shapes in promotional material.
Issue
Whether variable transformations defeat trademark certainty.
Held
Registration limited only to specific, fixed sequences.
Variable movements were rejected.
Legal Principle
Motion marks must be precisely defined, not open-ended.
Significance
This case underlines the importance of certainty and consistency in motion marks.
5. Motion Marks vs Other Non-Traditional Marks
| Type | Key Feature |
|---|---|
| Motion Mark | Visual movement |
| Sound Mark | Audible sequence |
| Shape Mark | 3D configuration |
| Hologram Mark | Optical illusion |
| Trade Dress | Overall look and feel |
6. Indian Perspective and Challenges
Challenges
Examiner hesitation due to lack of precedent
Difficulty in graphical representation
Proving distinctiveness
Advantages
Digital branding boom
Rule 26 supports video filing
Growing judicial openness to non-traditional marks
7. Conclusion
Motion marks represent the future of trademark law in a digital and multimedia-driven economy. While challenges remain, jurisprudence across jurisdictions shows a progressive acceptance of movement as a brand identifier, provided it is distinctive, non-functional, and precisely defined.
RELATED Blog
comments