When phrases like “Hey Siri,” “Alexa,” or “OK Google” become an essential part of everyday life, I found myself, like most users, fascinated by how effortlessly a simple spoken command could activate an entire technological system. But beyond their convenience, a more fundamental legal question began to emerge i.e., Can such wake words essentially voice-activated triggers be protected as trademarks, and if so, should they be recognised as word marks or as sound marks per se? The answer, as Indian trademark law currently stands, is far more nuanced than a straightforward classification.

While certain auditory elements such as jingles have been recognised and registered as trademarks, voice marks continue to occupy an uncertain legal position in India. The debate surrounding the recognition of “wake word marks” and the protection of the voice associated with “wake words” under the Trademark Act, 1999 stems from the ambiguity surrounding the legal interpretation and scope of “wake words”. Wake word marks such as “Hey Siri”, “Alexa” or “OK Google” are primarily protected as word marks. However, this classification fails to fully capture their functional and commercial essence. Wake words are not merely textual expressions; they are inherently auditory triggers, recognized by consumers through their sound, tone and delivery. This raises a critical question: should wake words be protected as sound marks rather than word marks?  There is a lot of confusion whether these voice assistants are merely a standalone voice tone or a spoken activation. The distinctiveness of these phrases often lies in their phonetic delivery and acoustic identity rather than their textual composition. Consumers associate these sounds with specific brands, suggesting that their trademark significance is deeply rooted in auditory perception. At the same time, confusion persists as to whether these identifiers should be treated as:

  1. A spoken phrase (word mark),
  2. A distinctive sound (sound mark), or
  3. A hybrid of both verbal and auditory elements.

The absence of clear legal recognition for such marks has added further complexity to trademark jurisprudence in India.

The Advantage: AI assistants to be recognised as sound marks and not merely as a word mark

There are compelling arguments in favour of extending sound mark protection to wake words:

  1. The sound or the voice of these AI assistants often possesses distinctive characteristics that enable consumers to identify the source of the service, fulfilling the essential function of a trademark.
  2. As sonic branding gains prominence, it becomes inevitable to cope with the emerging issues and challenges that arise as a result of recognition of wake word marks. The trademark law must evolve to accommodate sensory-based identifiers. Therefore, recognising wake words as sound marks would reflect this commercial reality.
  3. Granting protection to such auditory identifiers could establish clearer standards for consumer perception and help reduce confusion in increasingly competitive digital marketplaces.

The Disadvantage: AI assistants to be recognised only as word marks and not as sound marks.

Conversely, several concerns caution against granting sound mark protection to wake words:

  1. The sound or the voice of these AI assistants is merely functional in nature and primarily serves a technical function i.e., the function of activating devices. Hence, they are only operational, serving merely as triggers for technology rather than as indicators of origin. Thus, this functional aspect may undermine their eligibility as trademarks, which require distinctiveness beyond mere utility.
  2. The granting of exclusive rights over commonly used or descriptive phrases as well as the registration of the sounds/voices of AI assistants may lead to monopolistic practices and issues of genericness and restricting fair competition.
  3. The overprotection of voice-based features may hinder technological development as it may lead to barriers in competition and innovation. The competitors may face limitations in designing similar systems, potentially stifling innovation in the AI ecosystem. For instance, recently, Amazon.com Inc signed up Amitabh Bachan for its Alexa voice assistant, this has led to other competitors and rivals such as Google and Apple to come up with their own versions of voice assistants posing more challenges.

Contemporary developments and Emerging concerns

Recent developments have further intensified this debate. The rise of AI-powered voice assistants as well as certain developments such as integrating, incorporating or activating unique and distinct features such as ‘celebrity voice features’ into the existing AI assistants introduces an additional layer of complexity, intersecting trademark law with personality rights and voice ownership.  For instance, Amazon Inc introduced a “celebrity voice feature” for its voice assistant Alexa, collaborating with globally recognised personalities such as Samuel L. Jackson, Melissa McCarthy and recently even Amitabh Bachchan with an aim to offer users a personalised voice experience in both Hindi and English languages. With an introductory fee for a year, users can now activate this baritone that has enchanted the Indian film industry for over five decades through commands such as “Hey Alexa, introduce me to Amitabh Bacchan,” or by using customised wake phrases like “Amit Ji”. This demonstrates how voice itself can become a commercially valuable asset. The features allowing users to interact with AI assistants through customised wake phrases or celebrity voices highlight the growing importance of vocal identity branding.

Such innovations raise critical questions:

  1. Can a celebrity’s voice be protected as a trademark?
  2. Where should the line be drawn between functional technology and brand identity?

These recent developments illustrate how rapidly evolving technology is outpacing the existing framework. Over the years, with voice technology, people across the country are trying to build something to engage more effectively with their respective target audience and well-wishers. The technology has advanced to such an extent that customers in India can easily invoke the Amitabh Bachchan voice experience by just asking Alexa and instantly getting their favourite superstar’s voice responding to popular requests.

Conclusion

These developments underscore the urgent need for clearer legal standards. The current framework under the Trademarks Act, 1999 does not adequately address whether a voice, as distinct from a sound recording, can qualify for trademark protection. As AI continues to evolve, the boundaries between sound marks, voice marks, and personality rights are becoming increasingly blurred. The law must evolve to address these hybrid identifiers that combine auditory, linguistic and technological features.

Ultimately, the challenge lies in striking a balance between protecting innovation and brand identity without stifling competition or overextending trademark monopolies in an increasingly voice driven digital landscape. The question is no longer whether sound and voice should be protected, but how the law can adapt to meaningfully regulate them in an increasingly voice-first digital landscape.


Written by                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Simran Afza Munsur                                                                                                                     

Disclaimer: The featured image in this article is an AI-generated illustration.