Registration of identity elements as trademarks (TMs)

Trademarks as a protection tool

Registering elements of personal identity—such as a person’s voice, appearance, distinctive gestures, or other identifying characteristics—as trademarks (TMs) represents a shift in the legal approach to their protection: from safeguarding personal non-property rights to managing them as commercial assets. Using trademarks not only enables more effective control over the unauthorized use of a person’s voice, appearance, or gestures by third parties, but also simplifies the process of proving infringement.

One of the key advantages of trademark protection is its duration. Unlike patents for inventions or industrial designs, which have a limited term of protection, trademark rights can last indefinitely. A trademark registration is granted for 10 years but may be renewed every ten years without any limit on the number of renewals. This possibility of perpetual renewal makes trademark protection effectively unlimited in duration, distinguishing it from the Right of Publicity (rights relating to a person’s name, image, or voice), which is generally limited to a person’s lifetime and, in some jurisdictions, only extends for a certain period after death. Trademarks also provide a more straightforward enforcement mechanism. In disputes involving personality rights, the claimant is typically required to prove their public recognition, the similarity between the original identity and its imitation, as well as the existence of damage or financial loss. In contrast, trademark owners generally need only present a valid registration certificate to establish their rights.

The protection of personality rights is often territorially limited and depends on the legislation of a particular country. Trademarks, by contrast, offer significantly broader opportunities for international protection. Through the Madrid System, trademark owners can obtain legal protection in multiple jurisdictions by filing a single international application.

Trademark protection also enables faster enforcement against infringements on the Internet and digital platforms. While violations of personality rights often require case-by-case review by the complaint mechanisms of online platforms, registered trademarks can be integrated into automated monitoring and enforcement systems, significantly accelerating the detection and removal of infringing content.

Modern digital platforms and marketplaces have developed internal anti-counterfeiting mechanisms. Trademark owners can connect their registrations to tools such as Amazon Brand Registry or Meta’s intellectual property protection programs, including trademark monitoring features available through Meta Rights Manager.

For example, Amazon Brand Registry enables the automated detection of counterfeit products, copied logos, and unauthorized use of brand names, allowing infringing listings to be removed quickly. Major media platforms such as YouTube currently rely on automated systems, including Content ID, primarily to protect copyrighted works such as sound recordings and video content.

Meta Rights Manager detects the unauthorized use of logos and brand names in advertisements and commercial posts while also enabling rights holders to submit bulk complaints against counterfeit content and fake accounts that exploit another person’s name or brand.

Technical aspects of registration

Registering a person’s biometric or behavioral characteristics as trademarks (TMs) requires clearly identifying which elements are capable of functioning as commercial identifiers. Under Ukrainian law, the protected subject matter is not the individual as such, but specific characteristics associated with that person, including their name, pseudonym, voice, or other distinctive features. These elements must distinguish particular goods or services and create a consistent association in consumers’ minds with a specific commercial source.

The effectiveness of such protection largely depends on properly defining the scope of commercial use of the sign. Since trademark rights are granted in relation to specific goods and services, applicants must select the appropriate classes under the International Classification of Goods and Services (Nice Classification). In the context of combating deepfakes and the unauthorized use of personal characteristics through artificial intelligence, Classes 9, 35, and 41 are of particular importance.

Together, these classes make it possible to secure legal protection for such signs across the principal areas of their commercial use, including the digital environment, the promotion of goods and services, and the creation and distribution of audiovisual content.

The effectiveness of trademark protection depends not only on selecting the appropriate classes of goods and services but also on choosing the type of trademark that most accurately reflects the relevant biometric or behavioral characteristic. Depending on the subject matter, protection may be sought through word marks (names, pseudonyms, distinctive expressions), figurative marks (appearance or stylized visual representations), sound marks (voices, distinctive exclamations or phrases), motion marks (gestures or characteristic movements), multimedia marks (combinations of visual and audio elements), and, where appropriate, position marks, color marks, or other non-traditional trademark types. The appropriate form of protection depends on the nature of the characteristic and the way it is used in commercial activities.

The specific nature of these subject matters also requires particular methods of representation when filing a trademark application. For example, sound marks may be submitted as audio recordings accompanied by a description of the distinctive features of the sound, including, where relevant, the musical instrument on which it is performed. Motion marks may be represented by a sequence of images or a video file illustrating the movement of the sign, while multimedia marks are submitted as audiovisual files combining visual and sound elements into a single protected subject matter. Where necessary, applicants should also provide a description specifying the sign’s distinctive features, sequence of presentation, duration, sound characteristics, movements, or other elements that clearly define the scope of legal protection and the exclusive rights granted to the trademark owner.

As a party to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, Ukraine formally permits the registration of such non-traditional trademarks. In practice, however, the approach of the Ukrainian Intellectual Property Office remains relatively conservative, and not all of these types of marks are registered with equal success. At present, traditional word and figurative trademarks remain the most practical options for protecting personal brands in Ukraine. By contrast, the registration of sound, motion, and multimedia trademarks frequently encounters technical limitations within the national registration system. As a result, examiners often still require applicants to supplement digital files with traditional forms of representation, such as musical notation for sound marks or a sequence of static images extracted from a video for motion marks. These requirements may reduce the practical scope of legal protection.

It is therefore useful to compare how the registration of such trademarks is regulated in Ukraine, the European Union, and the United States, as these jurisdictions demonstrate different levels of adaptation to the challenges of digitalization.

Within the European Union, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) abolished the requirement for graphical representation following the reform of EU trademark legislation. Applicants may now submit sound and multimedia trademarks directly in digital formats such as MP3 and MP4, significantly simplifying the registration process.

In Ukraine, despite the harmonization of national legislation with EU law, trademark examination remains more formalized. In addition to digital files, applicants are frequently advised to provide detailed descriptions of the sign together with supporting materials, thereby increasing legal certainty regarding the scope of protection.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) follows the most flexible approach. U.S. practice allows the registration of voices, sounds, gestures, movements, and other personality-related elements, provided that the applicant demonstrates that consumers associate the sign with a particular commercial source of goods or services.

Despite these procedural differences, all three jurisdictions recognize sound, multimedia, and other non-traditional signs as legitimate subjects of trademark protection. This creates additional legal opportunities to safeguard personal identity against misuse through artificial intelligence technologies.

Case studies (Global experience)

Recent practice demonstrates the growing recognition of trademarks (TMs) as one of the primary legal tools for protecting elements of personal identity. This trend became particularly evident in 2025–2026, when public figures and celebrities increasingly turned to trademark law to safeguard their voices, likenesses, names, and other distinctive personal attributes.

The practical value of trademarks as a means of protecting biometric and behavioral characteristics is illustrated by several notable recent cases.

Dua Lipa v. Samsung: Protecting the commercial value of a celebrity’s image

British pop star Dua Lipa filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Samsung, seeking at least USD 15 million in damages for the unauthorized use of her photograph. Her legal team initiated the proceedings after the company allegedly ignored pre-litigation demands to withdraw television packaging featuring her image. The central issue extended beyond the mere use of a photograph to the commercial exploitation of a recognizable celebrity identity for product promotion. The case illustrates how a public figure’s appearance, name, and reputation are increasingly treated as commercially valuable assets deserving legal protection.

Taylor Swift: Trademark registration as a tool against deepfakes

In 2026, Taylor Swift filed new trademark applications covering both sound and visual elements associated with her voice and stage persona. Two applications relate to sound trademarks for the phrases “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” and “Hey, it’s Taylor,” while a third concerns a figurative trademark describing her stage appearance featuring a pink guitar together with related stage elements. These filings form part of a broader strategy aimed at addressing the growing capabilities of generative AI systems to replicate a person’s voice, communication style, and visual identity. The case demonstrates a shift from reacting to infringements after they occur toward preventive legal protection.

Matthew McConaughey: Protecting voice and distinctive personal characteristics

Matthew McConaughey has strengthened the legal protection of some of his most recognizable personal attributes, including his signature phrase “Alright, alright, alright” and certain visual aspects of his public image. The objective is to limit the unauthorized use of his voice, appearance, and mannerisms in digital content, video games, and AI-generated environments without the appropriate authorization from the rights holder.

Scarlett Johansson v. OpenAI: Unauthorized use of voice

The controversy surrounding OpenAI’s Sky voice assistant became one of the most prominent examples of the legal risks associated with AI-generated voice replication. After Scarlett Johansson declined OpenAI’s request to license her voice, the company released a synthetic voice that many considered strikingly similar to hers. The incident significantly intensified discussions about the potential use of trademarks as an additional legal mechanism for protecting voices, audio identifiers, and other elements of personal identity.

Cole Palmer and Luke Littler: Protecting signature gestures from digital replication

Professional athletes have also begun using trademark law to protect their distinctive behavioral characteristics. Footballer Cole Palmer and professional darts player Luke Littler have sought trademark protection for their signature celebration gestures. The primary objective is to maintain control over the use of these recognizable movements in digital content, including sports video games and other AI-powered environments that reproduce athletes’ behavior. This example demonstrates that trademark protection may extend beyond names, voices, and appearances to cover distinctive behavioral acts that have acquired independent commercial value and are closely associated with a particular individual in the minds of consumers.

Enforcement strategy in case of infringement

A registered trademark (TM) significantly strengthens a rights holder’s ability to prevent and respond to the unauthorized use of their voice, likeness, gestures, or other elements of personal identity reproduced through artificial intelligence technologies.

The first and most critical step is to properly preserve evidence of the infringement. Because AI-generated content can disappear from the Internet within seconds, prompt documentation is essential. This may be done using digital evidence preservation services, such as e-Evidence or the Wayback Machine, as well as through a lawyer’s formal inspection report of the relevant web page. These methods help establish the content, publication date, and source of the infringing material. Where the trademark is used on physical goods or packaging, documenting the sale and distribution of such products also becomes an important element of evidence.

Once the infringement has been identified, the rights holder may send a cease-and-desist demand requiring the infringer to stop the unauthorized use of the trademark. The existence of a trademark registration certificate significantly strengthens the claimant’s legal position by confirming exclusive rights to the protected sign and simplifying the process of proving infringement. In many cases, presenting evidence of trademark ownership is sufficient to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation.

Another important enforcement mechanism is the use of content removal procedures available on digital platforms. As noted above, most marketplaces, online services, social media platforms, and video-hosting services provide dedicated procedures for addressing intellectual property complaints. The existence of a registered trademark generally simplifies and accelerates the removal or blocking of infringing content. Trademark owners may also seek protection by contacting domain name registrars, hosting providers, operators of online platforms, and other intermediaries whose infrastructure is used to distribute counterfeit content or unauthorized digital copies.

Where out-of-court measures fail to stop the infringement, the rights holder may initiate court proceedings seeking an injunction prohibiting further use of the trademark, compensation for damages, statutory compensation where available, and other remedies provided by law. The availability of both pre-litigation and judicial enforcement mechanisms makes trademarks one of the most effective legal tools for protecting biometric and behavioral characteristics in the era of rapidly evolving artificial intelligence technologies.

Conclusions and outlook

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence has fundamentally challenged traditional mechanisms for protecting a person’s name, voice, and likeness against digital misuse. Today, physical appearance, a distinctive voice, signature gestures, and characteristic mannerisms possess independent commercial value and are increasingly treated as marketable assets. At the same time, the widespread proliferation of generative AI content, deepfakes, and AI-generated impersonations has created unprecedented risks of unauthorized reproduction and commercial exploitation.

International practice demonstrates a gradual expansion of opportunities to register non-traditional trademarks as a means of combating AI-driven infringement. In the coming years, further simplification of registration procedures for such marks can be expected, alongside the expansion of automated platform monitoring and the integration of AI-powered enforcement tools directly into rights holders’ protection systems.

Against this background, individuals whose professional activities depend on public recognition or the commercial exploitation of their personal identity should already be conducting audits of their intangible assets and identifying those elements of their identity that possess commercial value. Developing a comprehensive legal protection strategy—combining trademark registration, licensing arrangements, and digital enforcement mechanisms—is becoming increasingly important. Such an approach not only safeguards individual rights but also serves as a strategic tool for managing and protecting a personal brand in the age of rapidly advancing artificial intelligence.

Published in Yurydychna Praktyka

Link to the article