Motion Marks Under Scrutiny: Lessons from the General Court’s 2026 KCT Decision

When people think of trade marks, they usually picture logos or brand names. What they may not think of is a registered movement (ie. a motion mark).

However, since 2019, that possibility has been firmly on the table.

In January 2019, Directive (EU) 2015/2436 was amended. With this amendment, paragraph 13 states:

“A sign should therefore be permitted to be represented in any appropriate form using generally available technology, and thus not necessarily by graphic means…”

This change removed the strict requirement for graphic representation and enabled the registration of so-called non-traditional trade marks, including sounds, smells, holograms and motion marks.

Toshiba became the first company to register a motion mark in the UK in February 2019 (UK00003375593).

Yet despite this regulatory shift, adoption has been modest: more than five years later, the EUIPO has received fewer than 400 motion mark applications.

The KCT folding window case

On 26 July 2023, KCT GmbH & Co (KCT) applied to register a motion mark showing the opening and closing of a folding window on an expedition vehicle (Class 12).

The application was:

• Rejected by the examiner – 14 February 2024
• Appealed to the Board of Appeal – 5 April 2024
• Dismissed by the Board of Appeal
• Taken to the General Court, which issued its judgment on 16 January 2026

At every stage, KCT was unsuccessful.

Why the motion mark failed

The Board of Appeal and later the General Court relied on two key grounds under EU Trade Mark Regulation 2017/1001:

1. The sign consisted of a functional process (Article 7(1)(e)(ii))
2. It lacked distinctive character (Article 7(1)(b))

Article 7(1)(e)(ii) prevents registration of signs consisting of a shape or other characteristic that is necessary to obtain a technical result.

To apply this provision, the Court must determine:

1. The essential features of the sign
2. Whether those features perform a technical function

1. Identifying the essential features

The Court confirmed that essential features may be identified:

• through simple visual analysis, or
• through deeper technical examination using expert evidence, surveys, or prior IP data.

In this case, the essential feature was clear, the movement showing the window opening and closing.

2. Assessing technical function

The Court then examined whether that feature fulfilled a technical function. It did, the movement exists to allow the window to open and close.

KCT argued that:

• changes in colour during movement were distinctive, and
• the visible struts (seen in the image above) were imaginative and not technically necessary.

Both arguments were rejected. The colour change was merely perceived as shadow, and the struts were considered part of the functional structure.

The broader significance

This judgment reinforces a long-standing principle of trade mark law that trade marks cannot be used to monopolise technical solutions even if they are “imaginative”.

Importantly, the Court also confirmed that Article 7(1)(e)(ii) applies even to simple technical results. Further, even if a non-functional elements exist, registration will fail if the essential features are technical in nature.

Final thoughts on motion marks

Motion marks remain an exciting and underused category of trade mark protection. But this case is a reminder that novelty and creativity do not override the fundamental boundaries between trade mark law and technical protection.

If a sign’s core purpose is to make something work, trade mark registration may not be the appropriate route.

If you wish to discuss this topic with our team, reach out to Piers Strickland.