<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the criteria for sound mark registration in Indonesia and compare them with the legal framework applicable in the European Union (EU) jurisdiction. Sound marks, as a type of non-traditional trademark, pose challenges concerning representation, distinctiveness criteria, and substantive examination. The research method employed is normative legal research with a comparative approach. Secondary data was gathered through literature review, covering relevant legislation, legal doctrines, and case studies. The findings reveal significant differences in the formal and substantive requirements for sound mark registration between Indonesia and the EU. Indonesia still faces limitations, particularly regarding the representation requirement, which necessitates visualization, and the distinctiveness criteria, which have not been specifically detailed for aural elements. Conversely, EU regulations, particularly within the European Union Trademark (EUTM) framework, have demonstrated more progressive adaptation, allowing for non-visual representation and providing clearer guidelines on how a sound can be considered distinctive. The study concludes that Indonesia needs to review and reform its sound mark registration criteria to accommodate technological advancements and global business practices, specifically by adopting more flexible representation standards and developing more aural-specific examination guidelines for distinctiveness, mirroring the best practices implemented in the European Union.]]>
