Fwd:

[Eleonora Rosati]

EUIPO receives first sound mark application to protect against digital replicas and deepfakes

 Eleonora Rosati Sunday, May 17, 2026 - AI, Deepfakes, digital replicas, distinctiveness, Eleonora Rosati, enforcement, EUIPO, Giusy Ferreri, public policy, substantial value, trade marks

Giusy Ferreri

After Matthew McConaughey and Taylor Swift in the USA and a number of other applications before national trade mark offices (eg Italy), it is now the time of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to receive what has been presented as the very first trade mark application covering personal attributes and through which artists are seeking to gain protection against unauthorized digital replicas and deepfakes of themselves.

Italian singer Giusy Ferreri, known for several hits like Non Ti Scordar Mai di Me and Roma – Bangkok (with Baby K), filed an application (No 019353063) for a sound mark consisting of the phrase 'SONO GIUSY FERRERI' ("I am Giusy Ferreri"). The application covers several goods and services in classes 9 and 41 and was published last week. This means that, if no oppositions are filed by 10 August 2026, the registration will go through.

Not a novel phenomenon

Over time, The IPKat has discussed several EU trade mark applications concerning personal attributes – including faces [here, here, here] and phrases – with the former type of trade mark now being also at the centre of a pending Grand Board referral and a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) – Dr. Czirják-Nagy Ügyvédi Iroda, C-3/26 – discussed here just a few days ago.

It follows from the above that the (attempted) use of trade marks to protect one’s persona is nothing new, and certainly it is not something that the advent of generative AI has given rise to as a phenomenon. 

For all these applications, in fact, the questions remain the same: can these registrations be granted? And if they can, to what extent are they enforceable and ‘helpful’ in the context of, say, unauthorized uses of personal attributes, including inter alia digital replicas? The answer seems to be, once again, in the sense that these marks should be both difficult to obtain and enforce.

Distinctiveness of ‘anti-AI’ trade marks and other absolute grounds (substantial vallue; public policy)

Let’s start with registrability. The absolute ground concerning distinctiveness obviously comes to mind but may not be the only one. Substantial value and public policy are also grounds that are likely to be relevant in the context of these applications.

So, when Giusy Ferreri is seeking to register this sound mark for, say, “talking books” or “musical sound recordings”, would the phrase actually function as an indicator of commercial source or would it be rather perceived as being the content of those goods, that is an audiobook narrated by Ferreri or a new single of hers? 

Like in the case of the trade mark applications consisting of the image of AI avatars of historical characters, which The IPKat discussed a while ago, for such goods it is highly doubtful that the average consumer would consider Ferreri’s well-recognizable voice as actually functioning as a trade mark.

As noted, distinctiveness would likely not be the only absolute ground to consider though. Substantial value would also be relevant, including its nature as an absolute absolute ground (while distinctiveness might be acquired over time, if a trade mark falls under the absolute ground in Article 4(1)(e) EUTMR there is no way to save it). A sound mark can fall under the scope of application thereof, on consideration that (post-reform) the provision is no longer concerning shapes only, but also ‘other characteristics’. Furthermore, it can be recalled that in case like Gömböc [here, here, here] the CJEU clarified that ‘substantial value’ may not be considered as only encompassing aesthetic appeal.

Public policy might come into consideration as an absolute ground as well, given that an argument could be made that applications of this kind should not be granted because – at least in some cases – they would essentially stretch the role of trade marks in an undue manner, seeking to pursue objectives that are not those underpinning the trade mark system.

To sum up: although the Giusy Ferreri sound mark has passed the EUIPO internal review, one may wonder whether this should have been the case. Just a few months ago, the Grand Board provided guidance in the 'GEORGE ORWELL' decision [IPKat here] that would be of great relevance in the context of these applications too – whether they are filed by Ferreri or world-known celebrities like McConaughey or Swift.

Enforceability of trade mark rights

But even assuming that these kinds of trade marks can be validly registered (and can stay registered if challenged!), are they actually enforceable against their stated target, that is unauthorized digital replicas and deepfakes? After all, having a right that cannot be enforced is pointless. The answer? Perhaps not, at least in most situations.

There is no need to recall that the trade mark infringement test requires fulfilment of several requirements, including inter alia that the allegedly infringing sign is (i) identical or similar to the registered trade mark and that (ii) is used in the course of trade. 

In this context, one may wonder whether a sound mark consisting of the phrase “Sono Giusy Ferreri” is enforceable against a digital replica of Ferreri that only sounds like her but does not pronounce this or a similar phrase. Furthermore, if the digital replica is not commercially-focused, would there even be use in the course of trade?

Merpel is also considering filing a trade mark to protect her powerful voice, but should she?

All these aspects are discussed in greater detail in this other IPKat post concerning the use of trade mark law to protect one’s privacy.

Other forms of protection

As it is discussed here (p 23-24), the legal tools available to protect personal attributes – including likeness and other personal features, e.g., voice, silhouette, name, style, etc. – vary substantially from country to country.

In several instances, protection is possible under the umbrella of intellectual property rights, including by relying on copyright and performers’ rights. Several copyright statutes already envisage portrait rights too (they are not ‘copyright’ though!) and recently some countries like inter alia Denmark have advanced proposals to introduce specific digital replica rights [here].

Some jurisdictions also specifically provide for standalone personality, image, or publicity rights. The case of Italy, for example, has been repeatedly covered on this blog: see here, here, here, here.

Data protection regimes also offer protection, including in Europe under the GDPR. Similarly, unfair competition/passing off also play a role, as it was the case for eg Rihanna in the UK. Regarding the UK, recently Government announced that legislation to protect against unauthorized digital replicas might be considered for adoption, alongside self-standing image rights, which that country does not currently acknowledge.

Furthermore, the AI Act requires deployers of an AI system that generates or manipulates image, audio or video content constituting a deepfake, to disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated (Article 50(4)). It should be noted that no comparable legal obligation is foreseen for users of an AI system and/or other services, including but not limited to social media platforms. Nevertheless, some social media platforms like eg TikTok have been implementing their own labelling policies.

In sum 

There are several different tools that can be used – and must be combined – against unauthorized uses of one’s personal attributes, including but obviously not limited to digital replicas. Trade mark rights might also play a role, but the narrative that these filings are the way to go to 'be protected' and resulting enforcement initiatives are bound to succeed is - and should be - simply incorrect.

Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our 'Policies' section. If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.