A recent profile from the Wall Street Journal touts Chandelier as the agency that the world’s biggest brands enlist to help them “sell desire.” Led by Michael Scanlon and Eileen Eastburn, the New York-based firm creates immersive, emotionally charged brand worlds – from eerie soundtracks to hyper-stylized campaigns – to help fashion and beauty labels stand out in an increasingly crowded and loyalty-averse market. Among the stand-out aspects of the article: The mention of sonic branding – a reference to the agency’s work in crafting the sound of Khaite’s store in Soho.
Khaite’s breathy sonic landscape, assembled from eerie clips – like a line from David Lynch’s “Lost Highway” – is part of a growing push toward sonic branding. Once limited to jingles or start-up chimes, sonic identity now encompasses everything from ambient in-store experiences to custom audio logos and brand “soundscapes.” These are not just marketing gestures. For many (although, not all) fashion and retail brands, they are intellectual property.
This is not merely anecdotal enthusiasm. Kantar’s BrandZ research shows that brands with strong brand assets achieve 76% higher brand power and 138% higher perceptions of advertising strength – a category that explicitly includes sonic assets. In other words, sound is increasingly quantifiable as a driver of commercial influence, not just an atmospheric layer.
Legal protections for sonic branding are maturing on both sides of the Atlantic, with retail increasingly at the center.
From Jingles to Trademark Law
Under U.S. trademark law, sounds can be protected as long as they are distinctive and serve to indicate the source of goods or services. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) explicitly recognizes sound marks and has allowed registration of dozens tied to fashion, retail, beauty, and adjacent categories.
The most classic examples of sound marks come from the media segment: The NBC chimes and MGM lion roar, but companies across the retail market have made inroads too. Audi maintains a registration for the percussive sound emanates from its cares “when the car is turned on or the door opens.” Zippo has amassed rights in (and registrations for) the snap of its lighters, McDonalds has its “I’m Lovin It” audio, and Apple registered the sound of its computers turning on.
>> Pending applications for registration: Influencer marketing software company rewardStyle, Target Brands, toy giant Hasbro, Automobile Club of Southern California, and Pillsbury Company are among the companies that filed applications to register sensory marks in 2025. Meanwhile, in recent years, Shopify, Bosch, Instacart, Boston Consulting Group, Abbott Labs, Colgate-Palmolive, Lotus Bakeries, FedEx, and tequila-maker Casa Tradición, among others, have lodged applications with the USPTO for sound-specific marks.
Key case law includes In re General Electric Broadcasting (1978), which confirmed sound marks could be inherently distinctive if widely recognized. In contrast, other cases have emphasized the burden of proving acquired distinctiveness for nontraditional marks. At the same time, a major boost came in 2017 when the USPTO launched a separate category for sound and motion marks in the Trademark Electronic Application System, signaling institutional readiness to process more nonvisual branding.
Sound Marks Post-Reform
In the EU, sound trademarks have been registrable since the 1990s. While the process was once hampered by the requirement that marks be “graphically represented,” that changed with the 2017 EU Trademark Reform, which abolished that requirement and allowed for direct submission of audio files – accelerating sound mark registrations.
Even so, sound marks must still meet the distinctiveness threshold: they must be capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or services and be perceived by the average consumer as an indicator of origin. EUIPO guidance notes that short, melodic, or structured sounds are more likely to succeed, while functional or commonplace sounds (e.g., a doorbell or engine hum) typically fail.
A 2021 decision by the General Court rejected Ardagh Metal Beverage’s bid to trademark the sound of a can opening and fizzing, deeming it too generic. Likewise, EUIPO and its Board of Appeal denied Porsche’s attempt to register a 16-second engine sound, ruling it merely reflected functional vehicle performance and lacked distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b). Experts noted that even in high-attention markets like automotive, a sound must clearly indicate commercial origin – highlighting the EU’s ongoing resistance to functional sound marks, even after the reform.
Still, some brands have succeeded. Mastercard, for instance, secured an EU trademark registration for its transaction chime. Fashion and retail companies are increasingly exploring similar filings, especially as they expand into digital commerce channels. LVMH, for instance, applied for a sound mark tied to its online experience in 2022, while adidas has pursued protections for sonic assets associated with virtual goods.
A Converging Landscape for Retailers
As fashion brands push into immersive retail, virtual activations, and sensory marketing, the line between creative expression and protectable IP continues to blur. Sonic branding – once relegated to jingles or default ringtones – is becoming a new frontier for retail brands and trademark strategy. The legal criteria are demanding: a sound must not only be nonfunctional, it must also evoke brand identity in the minds of consumers. But for those that succeed, the benefits can be substantial: enhanced recall, multi-platform continuity, and a defensible edge in an increasingly saturated market.
Scanlon’s spooky breathing track at Khaite might not be registered as a trademark – chances are, the function of the soundtrack is less about indicating source than creating a mood. But it is still part of a broader shift in how retail brands think about sound – not just as ambiance, but potentially, as property.
Share
