The Rise of Nontraditional Trademarks in Reaction to AI

Artificial intelligence is accelerating a shift already underway in trademark law: the expansion beyond traditional word marks and logos into more experiential forms of branding. As companies and public figures compete for attention in digital and immersive environments, nontraditional trademarks—particularly sound marks, motion marks, and trade dress or product design—are gaining recognition. At the same time, courts and regulators continue to apply strict scrutiny to ensure these elements truly function as indicators of source.

A timely illustration of this trend is Matthew McConaughey, who has secured multiple trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office covering elements of his voice, likeness, and signature phrases like “alright, alright, alright.” His filings are not just traditional brand protection—they reflect a strategic response to the rise of AI-generated content capable of replicating identity with striking accuracy. By formalizing rights in these nontraditional elements, McConaughey is reinforcing legal control over how his persona is used, particularly in the context of deepfakes and synthetic media.

The Expanding Role of Nontraditional Marks

Historically, trademark protection centered on names and logos. Today, branding increasingly lives in how something sounds, moves, and appears in context.

Sound marks protect distinctive audio elements that signal a brand’s identity. AI-powered tools can generate distinctive audio signatures—tones, voice patterns, or short phrases—that function as brand identifiers. McConaughey’s recognizable cadence and delivery style, along with his well-known catchphrases, highlight how a voice itself can operate as a source identifier when consistently tied to a single individual or brand. However, the USPTO still requires clear evidence that consumers associate the sound with a specific source, not merely that it is memorable. Applicants must show the sound is distinctive and not functional (e.g., not just a common notification tone).

Motion marks cover moving images or animated sequences used as brand identifiers. AI-driven animation tools allow brands to create consistent visual sequences—logo reveals, transitions, or character movements—that become part of their identity. While McConaughey’s filings focus more heavily on voice and persona, the same legal logic applies: movement and performance elements may be protectable if they are consistent and uniquely associated with a single source, not decorative animation.

Trade dress/product design protects the visual appearance or packaging of a product that signifies its source. AI is increasingly used to refine product shapes, packaging, and visual presentation based on consumer data. Yet trademark protection hinges on non-functionality and acquired distinctiveness. This creates tension where AI-optimized designs may be aesthetically compelling but legally functional. The lesson from personality-driven marks like McConaughey’s is that distinctiveness must ultimately be tied to recognition—not just design innovation.

AI’s Double-Edged Impact on Distinctiveness

AI enhances the ability to create unique branding elements, but it also increases the risk of overlap. Tools trained on similar datasets can produce similar outputs, making it harder to claim exclusivity. In the context of voice and likeness, this challenge becomes even more pronounced: AI can now generate performances that closely mimic real individuals without authorization.

McConaughey’s trademark strategy directly addresses this issue. By securing rights in his voice and signature expressions, he strengthens his ability to challenge unauthorized AI-generated imitations. His approach reflects a broader shift toward proactive identity protection, where trademarks are used not just to distinguish goods and services, but to safeguard personal brand attributes in digital environments.

Evolving Legal Standards

Courts and the USPTO continue to refine what qualifies as a protectable nontraditional mark. Key considerations remain:

• Whether the feature functions as a source identifier

• Whether it is non-functional

• Whether it has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning

AI does not change these standards, but it complicates their application. For example, proving that a voice or phrase is distinctive may now require distinguishing it from AI-generated imitations that circulate widely online.

Looking Ahead

The intersection of AI and trademark law is pushing the boundaries of what can—and should—be protected. Nontraditional marks are no longer niche; they are becoming central to how brands and individuals define themselves.

McConaughey’s filings offer a clear signal of where things are heading: a world in which voice, movement, and persona are treated as valuable, protectable assets. As AI continues to blur the line between authentic and synthetic expression, the ability to establish and enforce distinctiveness in these nontraditional forms will only grow in importance.