Sonic Seasoning and In-Store Psychology: Trademarking Multisensory Consumer Experience

Photo by JHVEPhoto (Shutterstock)

Emily XiangEmily Xiang is an IPilogue Writer, the President of the Intellectual Property Society of Osgoode (IPSO), and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

So far, intellectual property law has protected some pretty wild things – biological genes, blue football turfs, even methods for building the “perfect” snowman. But, is it possible to protect an experience? In June 2019, major amendments to Canada’s Trademarks Act (RSC 1985 c T-13) came into force, including the protection of non-traditional trademarks consisting, in whole or in part, of sounds, holograms, moving images, scents, tastes, colours, three-dimensional shapes, modes of packaging goods, textures, and positioning of signs. This legislative addition is critical when assessing how businesses and marketers may potentially protect multisensory experiences (MSEs). However, certain barriers arise in applying traditional intellectual property principles to such sui generis subject matters. Let’s take a look at some examples.

Sonic Seasoning: Combining Music with Flavour

Sonic seasoning refers to the multisensory phenomenon that occurs when the sounds that one hears have a psychological effect on one’s taste perception. Since this discovery, companies and brands in the food and beverage industry have sought to carve out a unique space in the marketplace for food and sound pairings, making the combination itself the centrepiece for more extensive marketing campaigns invoking a particular “atmosphere” or “experience.” For instance, in 2020, Castello published an audio content series that illustrated six of their cheeses using specifically curated sounds. Beer companies like North Brewing Co. have also embarked on projects to provide consumers with “immersive” drinking experiences through packaging design, music, taste, and photography.[1]

While the amendments to the Trademarks Act now protect taste marks and sounds marks separately, brand owners should be aware that applications for such marks require that the taste or sound meet the prescribed standards of distinctiveness and non-functionality. On distinctiveness, evidence would need to be submitted to demonstrate that the brand’s reputation of the mark in question is sufficient to trump another primary meaning that a member of the public might attribute to the taste or sound. The non-functionality standard may also cause issues for applicants seeking trademark protection for tastes since the primary purpose of foods and beverages is to provide or impart flavour.

It has been suggested that mark owners seeking trademark protection for MSEs should instead apply for “trade dress” protection, a “distinguishing guise” or “a mode of wrapping or packaging wares.” While the applicant would still need to show distinctiveness and non-functionality, trade dress protection seems to most adequately address the overall “concept” or “feel” of a product, so long as the features are source-identifying.

Trademarking the “Consumer In-Store Experience”

Auditory cues can pair with other sensory tools to market products and services. Research into retail presentation and ambience has shown that such factors as lighting, flooring, music, decor, and even fragrance play a role in driving consumer experience and behaviour. In his book In Pursuit of Silence: Listening for Meaning in a World of Noise, George Prochnik discusses the soundscapes developed by Abercrombie & Fitch, in which “loud music and spotlit darkness [are used to] introduce a state of celebratory arousal. Indeed, if you walk around your local branch of Abercrombie & Fitch, you may feel that there would be something downright frigid in considering your purchase too closely.” Fragrances are increasingly used by marketers to conjure particular consumer experiences, whether it be in retail stores, car showrooms, sports stadiums, airports, banks, or apartment buildings. For instance, Hyatt infuses the air of its luxurious line of “Park Hyatt” hotels with a signature fragrance in the hopes of creating an association in the minds of its customers between the scent and the level of luxury at the Park Hyatt.

In 2013, Apple successfully applied for intellectual property protection of the design and layout of its signature retail store. The USPTO granted the tech giant an arguably broad trademark that covered various features of the space, including clear glass storefront surrounded by a paneled facade, rectangular recessed lighting units covering the ceiling, and rectangular tables arranged in lines covering the floor space. Such details can make up one’s entire ‘experience’ of an Apple store, thereby qualifying for MSE trademark protection. 

Conclusion

As the scope of intellectual property law continues to expand, questions arise as to how existing IP regimes can potentially respond to increasingly amorphous and novel subject matter. The inclusion of non-traditional marks in Canadian trademark legislation represents an opportunity for mark owners to protect subtle elements of their brands. It is an area of the law we should keep a close eye on in years to come.


[1] Mark Edward Blankenship Jr., “With Eyes to See and Ears to Beer: Navigating Multisensory Intellectual Property Rights in The Craft Beer Industry”, (2021) 21:4 Wake For Intellect Prop Law J 397.

One Comment
  1. This is an excellent piece, Emily! I have been curious about this issue recently as well, as I am noticing many celebrities are introducing fragrance lines that tout their ability to change “moods” and “emotions” (see Addison Rae’s new perfume line).

    I look forward to new developments in this space. Again, fantastic post!

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

three × 4 =