Does that ring a bell? The GC contradicts the EUIPO´s

criterion for registering an auditory trademark.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) on 10 September 2025 (Case T-288/24)

The EUIPO refused to register a two-second ‘jingle’ as a trademark on the grounds that the sound in question was merely functional, whose purpose was to capture a user’s attention in a noisy environment, and as such, lacked distinctive character.

Dissatisfied with the foregoing, the applicant appealed to the General Court arguing that (i) the sound was original, (ii) it was not simply a generic or functional noise, and (iii) the brevity of the melody is exactly the element that makes it easy to remember by associating it with a specific commercial origin.

After assessing the facts and grounds of the case, the GC annulled the decision of the lower court. In its judgment, the Court concluded that the Office made an error of assessment. It explained that the criteria for judging the distinctive character of a sound mark are the same as for any other type of trademark, determining that, because the melody is an original sequence of sounds for the purposes of a  ‘jingle’, its function is to identify the commercial origin of the service and would be perceived as such.

The judgment highlights the importance of considering context and usage within an economic sector when assessing the distinctiveness of a trademark, regardless of its nature, and recognizes that jingles can play a crucial role for identifying a company to consumers, especially in the transport services sector.

Link to the resolution: click here

September 24, 2025