From Viral to Valuable: Trademarking Memes in Modern IP Law
- Snehal Khemka
- Aug 21, 2025
- 5 min read
Memes- from cat images to viral catchphrases, have become potent cultural and commercial assets. No longer limited to fleeting internet jokes, they are now valuable enough to spark intellectual property battles. From reaction images to viral phrases, memes have evolved into powerful cultural symbols capable of driving marketing campaigns, building brand identity, and even shaping public opinion. From "Grumpy Cat", "Doge" to even “Binod”, creators and companies are seeking trademark protection over popular memes to monetize their cultural capital and prevent misuse. But where do we draw the line between public expression and private ownership? Moreover, as their influence grows, so does the legal interest in owning them. Can memes be trademarked? Should they be?
This article explores the intersection of internet culture and intellectual property law, unpacking the legal complexities, real-world cases, and future implications of transforming internet jokes into brand assets and protected trademarks in the age of digital influence.
What Is a Meme, Legally Speaking?
A "meme" is typically an image, video, or phrase that spreads virally online, often humorously. But in legal terms, a meme is not just a joke or image, but can be interpreted as “signs”, “symbols” or “expressions” that distinguish goods or services of one party from another in commerce. Under trademark laws, notably the U.S. Lanham Act and India’s Trade Marks Act, 1999, a meme- whether image, phrase, or even a viral video may even qualify for registration if it functions as a “source identifier.” In India, Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 allows for protection of words, numerals, images, shapes, or even sounds, provided they distinguish one party’s goods or services from another’s. Thus, when a meme becomes strongly associated with a product, persona, or brand, it may be argued that it functions as a trademark. The same principles also apply to unconventional trademarks such as those pertaining to sound, color, smell, and even motion.
Legal Landmarks: When Memes Go to Court
Grumpy Cat | Pepe the Frog |
 |  |
Source: Mediapunch/REX/Shutterstock
One of the most famous early cases is that of Grumpy Cat[1], the perpetually frowning feline whose image became a viral sensation. In a headline-grabbing case, Grumpy Cat Limited trademarked the cat’s likeness and name, and even won more than $710,000 in damages in a lawsuit against a beverage company for unauthorized use of the cat’s image and name beyond the scope of a license agreement. The company had used the meme far beyond the agreed product line, proving that meme-based trademarks can carry substantial legal weight. The judgment reinforced that meme-based trademarks have real enforceability and monetary value.
Originally a harmless cartoon, Pepe the Frog was misappropriated by extremist groups, prompting creator Matt Furie to launch copyright infringement actions. In 2019, Furie successfully took legal action against an alt-right website selling Pepe-themed merchandise. Furie not only coordinated copyright litigation but also filed for trademark protection to regain control over Pepe’s public image, illustrating how trademarks serve to shield both revenue and reputational control.
Similarly, the viral “Doge” meme became the face of Dogecoin, raising issues of ownership and branding without formal protection. Even popular phrases like “OK Boomer” have sparked trademark applications for use on merchandise, though generic or descriptive expressions face hurdles in registrability. Despite these developments, not every meme can be trademarked- distinctiveness, prior use, and commercial application are crucial factors. Moreover, legal and ethical concerns persist: some critics argue that trademarking memes risks stifling creativity, suppressing free speech, and commercializing what was once shared cultural expression.
Even in the Indian context, memetic phrases have successfully crossed into the realm of trademark protection—most notably “DOGLAPAN” and “BINOD.” Entrepreneur and reality TV personality Ashneer Grover popularized the phrase “Yeh sab doglapan hai” (“This is all hypocrisy”) during his appearance on the show Shark Tank India. The phrase quickly went viral on social media, spawning memes, remixes, and merchandise. Recognizing its commercial potential, Grover filed for and secured trademark registration for “DOGLAPAN” (Application Number 5439887), granting him exclusive rights over its use in branding and goods.
Another iconic example is “BINOD”, a name that became a widespread meme after YouTubers Slayy Point highlighted a peculiar comment pattern where users would post just the name “Binod” under videos. The absurdity of the trend catapulted the name into meme stardom, prompting influencers and brands to capitalize on its popularity. Recognizing its branding potential, Abhyudaya Vats Mohan, one of the founders of Slayy Point, moved swiftly to trademark the term under multiple classes, including for apparel and merchandise.
Legal and Ethical considerations:
The intersection of legal and ethical concerns with creative freedom and proprietary control becomes particularly complex in the context of memes. While some view memes as a form of public expression that belongs to shared internet culture, attempts to trademark them raise concerns about the privatization of what feels like communal language. This tension between public expression and private ownership is further intensified by fears of a chilling effect on free speech; if meme owners begin to enforce trademark rights overaggressively, it could stifle parody, commentary, and user-generated creativity- forms of expression often protected under fair use (in jurisdictions like the U.S.) or free speech and expression doctrines (like Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution).
This is to say that parody and satire, by their very nature rely heavily on referencing or mimicking well-known cultural materials, including memes. If a memetic phrase or image becomes a registered trademark, its owner may claim that any unauthorized use, even for non-commercial or humorous purposes- constitutes infringement. This, in turn may create a restrictive scenario where users might self-censor or avoid engaging with trademarked content altogether out of fear of legal action. For example, using a trademarked meme phrase to criticize a brand, celebrity, or political figure could potentially lead to cease-and-desist letters or lawsuits, even if the usage qualifies as protected commentary.
Additionally, as brands increasingly appropriate memes for commercial gain, there is growing unease over the commercialization of internet culture, especially when original creators are neither credited nor compensated. Together, these concerns highlight the delicate balance between protecting intellectual property and preserving the free, participatory spirit of online cultural expression.
Conclusion:
The meme is no longer just internet ephemera. Rather, it’s a commercial, reputational, and legal asset. As brands and individuals rush to capture viral attention, the question of who owns the joke becomes more than rhetorical. Trademark law offers a framework, but its application to memes remains evolving and, in many ways, untested. While registration of memes as trademarks in India is still nascent, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 permits registration of a wide range of identifiers, suggesting potential for growth in this space. However, given India's active internet population and prolific meme culture, brand owners may soon attempt to register viral content as trademarks, especially if it becomes tied to commercial branding.
Snehal Khemka
Associate
REFERENCES
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trademark/1025194/pepe-the-frog
https://www.gerbenlaw.com/blog/uspto-refuses-fox-medias-ok-boomer-trademark-application/
https://yourlegalcareercoach.com/the-legality-of-meme-creation-under-indian-copyright-law/
https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/blogs/in-the-public-interest/20210112-pepe-the-frog
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/style/ok-boomer-trademark.html
Grumpy Cat Limited v. Grenade Beverage LLC, 8:15-cv-02063, (C.D. Cal.)
Comments