First multimedia ‘motion’ trademark registered in UK

No items found.
​
August 12, 2019
#
Trademarking
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Toshiba has become the first organisation to register a ‘motion’ trademark in the UK after submitting a multimedia file.

While it has been possible to register motion marks before, submissions were required to be illustrated graphically. Following changes to UK trademark law in January 2019 applicants can now submit their motion, hologram or sound trademark using a multimedia file.

Tim Moss, chief executive of the UK Intellectual Property Office, said: “Trademarks are likely to become increasingly innovative in the digital age, as organisations explore imaginative ways of reflecting their distinctive brand personalities using creative intellectual property.

“Under the amended trademark law, submission of motion marks, hologram trademarks and sound marks via multimedia format now enables examiners to see exactly what the creator of the mark intended.”

View the Toshiba registered multimedia motion mark.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged independent claims
21 April 2026
In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.
​
Seriously deficient disclosure process not sufficient to reopen costs order - Cabo v MGA
08 April 2026
A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.
​
UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​