Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:44:35.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensorium®: The Splash of Sensory Trademarks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2019

Charlene Elliott Open the ORCID record for Charlene Elliott [Opens in a new window]
Charlene Elliott*
Affiliation:
Professor of Communication and Canada Research Chair in Food Marketing, Policy and Children’s Health Department of Communication, Media and Film Faculty of Arts, University of Calgarycharlene.elliott@ucalgary.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sensory trademarks present a compelling case in which to explore the senses as “containers of possibility,” and this article explores the emergence and logic of sensory trademarks from a legal and marketers’ perspective. Using sensory trademark cases from the United States, I suggest that the current socio-legal environment opens a conversation about what I would call sensory capitalism—the monetization of the senses rather than the propertization of the senses—that requires intellectual property law to properly function. I argue that the sensory model espoused by the trademarking of the senses is one of the mass sensorium, whereby the “audience” universally recognizes marks as designating a particular source or origin of goods. The mass sensorium offers something quite novel, however, because embedded in it is the (corporate) promise of a lingua franca that valorizes all of the senses and generates a type of mediated affect that is shared.

Résumé

Les marques de commerce sensorielles sont des concepts intéressants aux fins d’une exploration des sens en tant que « conteneurs de possibilités ». Le présent article explore l’émergence et la logique des marques de commerce sensorielles du point de vue juridique et dans une perspective de commercialisation. En se fondant sur des cas étatsuniens de marques de commerce sensorielles, l’auteur suggère que l’environnement sociojuridique actuel ouvre une discussion sur ce que l’on pourrait appeler le capitalisme sensoriel—soit la monétisation des sens plutôt que l’appropriation des sens—ce qui nécessite le respect du droit de la propriété intellectuelle. L’auteur soutient que le modèle sensoriel adopté par la commercialisation des sens constitue un des sensoriums de masse, selon lequel le « public » reconnaît universellement que les marques désignent une source ou une origine particulière de produits. Le sensorium de masse offre cependant quelque chose de tout à fait novateur dans la mesure où il se base sur la promesse (entrepreneuriale) de lingua franca valorisant tous les sens et générant un type d’affect médiatisé et socialement partagé.

Keywords

trademarksensory markssensesnon-traditionalmonetizationintellectual propertymarketingsmellmediacapitalismUnited StatesCanadamarquemarques de commerce sensoriellessensnon traditionnelmonétisationpropriété intellectuellemarketingcommercialisation
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 34 , Special Issue 2: Vers une déstabilisation du sensorium du droit: Étude de la jurisprudence des sens / Troubling Law’s Sensorium: Explorations in Sensational Jurisprudence , August 2019 , pp. 243 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor of CJLS for their thoughtful feedback on this manuscript, and guest editor David Howes for his excellent advice, thoughtful feedback and the opportunity to be part of this special issue. The author would also like to thank all of the participants of the Othered Senses conference, who provided thoughtful critiques and commentary on the first draft of this paper, as well as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for funding in support of this project. Research for this article was funded by a SSHRC Insight Grant [no. 435-2015-1916].

References

References

Angell, Ian. 2008. As I See It: Enclosing identity. Identity in the Information Society 1 (1): 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvidsson, Adam, and Colleoni, Elanor. 2012. Value in informational capitalism and on the Internet. The Information Society 28 (3): 135–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1992. Intimations of Postmodernity. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beebe, Barton. 2010. Intellectual Property Law and the Sumptuary Code. Harvard Law Review 123 (4): 810–89.Google Scholar
Betancourt, Michael. 2010. Immaterial Value and Scarcity in Digital Capitalism. CTheory. https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/view/14982/5883Google Scholar
Boyle, James. 2003. The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain. Law and Contemporary Problems 66: 33–74.Google Scholar
Castells, Manuel. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd edition. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Classen, Constance. 1993. Worlds of Sense: Exploring the senses in history and across cultures. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Classen, Constance. 1998. The Color of Angels: Cosmology, gender and the aesthetic imagination. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Classen, Constance. 2007. Museum Manners: The sensory life of the early museum. The Senses & Society 40 (4): 895–914.Google Scholar
Classen, Constance. 2012. The Deepest Sense: A cultural history of touch. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, Brooks, Catherine, M., and Schnurr, David. 2017. Canada’s Proposed New Trademark Regulations Released for Public Comment. Miller Thompson. June 22. http://www.millerthomson.com/en/publications/communiques-and-updates/intellectual-property-ip-and-information/news-alert-june-22/canadas-proposed-new-trademark-regulations-released-comment/Google Scholar
Donahue, Bill. 2014a. Weird Marks: 3 Tips for using nontraditional trademarks. Law360. November 6. www.law360.com/articles/593791Google Scholar
Donahue, Bill. 2014b. T-Mobile Wins Ban on AT&T Unit’s Color Scheme. Law360. February 10. www.law360.com/articles/508542Google Scholar
Donahue, Bill. 2017. Cheerios’ Yellow Box Not a Trademark, TTAB Says. Law360. August 23. www.law360.com/articles/956940Google Scholar
Elliott, Charlene. 2003. Colour Codification: Law, culture and the hue of communication. Journal for Cultural Research 7 (3): 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, Christian. 2010. Labor in Informational Capitalism and on the Internet. The Information Society 26 (3): 179–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Géci, Andrej, Nagyová, L’udmila, and Rybanská, Jana. 2017. Impact of Sensory Marketing on Consumers’ Buying Behaviour. Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences 11 (1): 709–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilson, Jerome, and Gilson LaLonde, Ann. 2005. Cinnamon Buns, Marching Ducks and Cherry-Scented Racecar Exhaust: Protecting nontraditional trademarks. Trademark Reporter 95: 773–824.Google Scholar
Hasbro, Inc. 2017. Non-Visual Play-Doh Scent Mark. U.S. Trademark Application 87/335, 817 [Response to Office Action].Google Scholar
Harvey, David. 1990. The Condition of Postmodernity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Hilfer, Law. 2013. The Power of Sensory Trademarks. https://kbhilferlaw.com/the-power-of-sensory-trademarks/Google Scholar
Holbrook, Morris B., and Hirschman, Elizabeth C.. 1982. The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research 9 (2): 132–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howes, David. 2003. Sensual Relations: Engaging the senses in culture and social theory. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howes, David. 2005. Hyperaesthesia: The sensual logic of late capitalism. In Empire of the senses: The sensual culture reader , ed. Howes, David, 281–303. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Howes, David. 2017. How Capitalism Came to Its Senses—and yours: The invention of sensory marketing. Conference paper Presented at Harvard Business School, Boston, MA. June 29. http://www.centreforsensorystudies.org/how-capitalism-came-to-its-senses-and-yours-the-invention-of-sensory-marketing/Google Scholar
Howes, David, and Classen, Constance. 2013. Ways of Sensing: Understanding the senses in society. New York: Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hultén, Bertil. 2010. Sensory Marketing: The multi-sensory brand-experience concept. European Business Review 23 (3): 256–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hultén, Bertil, Broweus, Niklas, and Dijk, Marcus van. 2009. Sensory Marketing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearns, Jean Hayes. 1996. Qualitex co. v. Jacobson Products Co.: Orange you sorry the Supreme Court protected color? St. John’s Law Review 70 (2): 337–58.Google Scholar
Klein, Naomi. 2007. The Shock Doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Toronto, ON: Knopf Canada.Google Scholar
Krishna, Aradhna (ed.). 2010. Sensory Marketing: Research on the sensuality of products. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krishna, Aradhna. 2013. Customer Sense: How the 5 senses influence buying behaviour. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishna, Aradhna, Cian, Luca, and Sokolova, Tatiana. 2016. The Power of Sensory Marketing in Advertising. Current Opinion in Psychology 10: 142–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. 2005. Free Culture: The nature and future of creativity. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lindstrom, Martin. 2005. Brand Sense: Build powerful brands through touch, taste, smell, sight, and sound. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lindstrom, Martin. 2008. Buy-ology: Truth and lies about what we buy. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Lipowski, Z. J. 1973. Affluence, Information Inputs and Health. Social Science and Medicine 7 (7): 517–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lipowski, Z. J. 1975. Sensory and Information Inputs Overload: Behavioural effects. Comprehensive Psychiatry 16 (3): 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, Antony. 2015. Disaster Capitalism: Making a killing out of catastrophe. New York, NY: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Lukose, Lisa P. 2015. Non-Traditional Trademarks: A critique. Journal of the Indian Law Institute 57 (2): 197–215.Google Scholar
Mackie, Vanessa. 2005. Scent Marks the Future of Canadian Trade-Mark Law. Intellectual Property Journal 18: 417–42.Google Scholar
Massumi, Brian. 2015. Politics of Affect. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Katharine. 2005. Whether Sound Marks Can and/or Should Be Registered as Trade-Marks in Canada. Intellectual Property Journal 19 (1): 117–47.Google Scholar
Moore, Adam. 2003. Intellectual Property: Theory, privilege, and pragmatism. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 16 (2): 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosco, Vincent. 2009. The Political Economy of Communication, 2nd edition. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosco, Vincent. 2018. A Critical Perspective on the Post-Internet World. Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture 25: 210–17.Google Scholar
Moulier Boutang, Yann. 2011. Cognitive Capitalism. Trans. Emery, E.. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Peters, John Durham. 2015. The Marvelous Clouds: Towards a Philosophy of Elemental Media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Carol M. 2003. Romans, Roads and Romantic Creators: Traditions of public property in the information age. Law and Contemporary Problems 66: 89–110.Google Scholar
Runge, C. Ford, and Defrancesco, Edi. (2006). Exclusion, Inclusion, and Enclosure: Historical commons and modern intellectual property. World Development 34 (10): 1713–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Bernd. 1999. Experiential Marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, think, act, relate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Setyawan, Andry. 2017. Non-Traditional Trademarks in Indonesia: Protection under the laws and regulations. Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies 2 (2): 123–30.Google Scholar
Srnicek, Nick. 2017. Platform capitalism . Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Srnicek, Nick. 2017a. The challenges of platform capitalism. Juncture 23 (4): 254–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, Timothy. 2015. Federal Court of Appeal Confirms the Registrability of Single Colour Trademarks in Canada. Mondaq Business Briefing. May 14. https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-413557965.htmlGoogle Scholar
Stockell, Catherine, and Lyapis, Irina. 2017. Thinking Outside the Box: Sensible strategies for non-traditional trademarks. Trademark & Copyright Webinar Series . June 28 https://www.fr.com/events/trademark-webinar-thinking-outside-the-box-sensible-strategies-for-non-traditional-trademarks/Google Scholar
Wardlaw, Andrew. 2017. Marketing to Millennials? Think sensory. Research World 10 (66): 54–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuboff, Shoshana. 2015. Big Other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology 30: 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zukerfeld, Mariano. 2017. The Tale of the Snake and the Elephant: Intellectual property expansion under informational capitalism. The Information Society 33 (5): 243–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases cited

A Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co, 201 U.S. 1906Google Scholar
Campbell Soup Co. v. Armour & Co., 175 F.2d 795 (3rd Cir. 1949)Google Scholar
Diamond Match Co. v. Saginaw Match Co., 142F (6th Cir. 1906)Google Scholar
Life Savers Corporation v. Curtiss Candy Co, 182 F.2d 4 (7th Cir. 1950)Google Scholar
New York Pizzeria, Inc. v. Ravinder Syal, et al., Case No. 13-335 (S.D. TX 2014)Google Scholar
Qualitex Co v. Jacobson Products Co., 514, U.S. 159 (1995)Google Scholar
Tas-T-Nut Company v. Variety Nut & Date Company, 245 F.2d 3 (6th Cir. 1957)Google Scholar
T-Mobile US, Inc. et al. v. Aio Wireless LLC, Case No. H-13-2478 (S.D. TX 2014)Google Scholar
Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. v. Peak Innovations Inc., [2009] FC 1200 (CanLII)Google Scholar
Smith Kline & French Canada Ltd. v. Canada Registrar of Trade Marks, [1987] 2 F.C. 633 (F.C.T.D.)Google Scholar

Acts cited

Lanham Act, 15 USCGoogle Scholar
Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts [Combating Counterfeit Products Act], 2nd session, 41st Parliament, 2014Google Scholar
Trade-marks Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13)Google Scholar