A New Dimension of Branding: India's First Accepted Olfactory Trademark

A New Dimension of Branding: India's First Accepted Olfactory Trademark. Historically, trademark laws have safeguarded aspects of commerce that consumers can easily identify which includes product design, brand name, logo, colours, and sounds to some extent. However, in the wake of marketers seeking to provide memorable customer experiences, branding has evolved beyond the visual and auditory. In the present day, businesses started using other sensory channels such as scents as a way of connecting to consumers on an emotional level. Thus, before the term sensory branding was coined, numerous changes in trademark laws occurred, including the emergence of the olfactory mark concept.
Recently, there has been a significant event in this area in India, the Trade Marks Registry approved the application made by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. for the rose fragrance used in Tyres. The acceptance decision was made in November, 2025, which is the first instance of the olfactory mark approved at the examination stage in India. Although now the application is at the opposition stage and has not been registered yet, its approval hints at a new stage in intellectual property law development in India.
Understanding Olfactory Marks
An olfactory trademark, also known as a smell mark or scent mark, refers to a unique smell that distinguishes the source of a product or service in commerce. Like any other type of trademark, its main function is to differentiate products of various traders and allow the buyer to link a specific product to the relevant business.
While other trademarks can be seen, smell trademarks can only be felt. They lack the visibility of words, images, or designs. Moreover, people's perceptions of a smell differ from person to person based on the biological, cultural, and surrounding conditions.
It is crucial to differentiate between a regular fragrance and a scent mark. A lot of products have a smell inherent in them or added for practical purposes. For example, most of perfumes have a commercial value thanks to their fragrance. Similarly, soaps, detergents, and air fresheners tend to have a nice smell. However, such scents have no trademark significance in the eyes of consumers, who perceive them as product characteristics, rather than a symbol of brand.
In contrast, a smell trademark identifies the source of a product using a scent that is completely unrelated to the actual product and has neither functional or intrinsic properties. For instance, a rose fragrance on vehicle tires would be uncommon, because no consumer would associate the fragrance of roses with vehicle tires. That sort of artificial, non-descriptive smell could make the tires easily distinguishable and give rise to an exclusive brand image.
Worldwide, there have been very few olfactory trademarks recognized due to the considerable legal and practical difficulties entailed in their registration. However, in light of increasing investment by corporations in sensory marketing, smell trademarks are becoming more and more significant in terms of their intellectual property value.
Legal Context Under The Trademark Act, 1999
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not give any clear recognition or prohibition to olfactory trademarks. However, the broad provisions created under this Act provide enough legal ground for protecting the non-conventional trademarks, including the olfactory trademark if it meets the legal requirements set by law.
As per Section 2(1)(zb), the term "trademark" means any mark which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and which is capable of being represented in a manner which enables the authorities and the public to determine the precise subject matter of the protection. Also, the "mark" is defined under Section 2(1)(m) as the device, brand, label, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape, configuration, pattern, packaging or combination thereof. Since this definition is inclusive, it means that the Act does not bar other possible types of trademarks, including olfactory trademarks.
Nevertheless, Section 9(1)(a) makes it illegal to register a mark which lacks distinctive character. Thus, smell trademark must be used as source identifier and should neither be descriptive nor perform a function. Further, the representation of a smell is a difficult task. In view of the above, distinctiveness, representation and non-functionality become the crucial requirements of smell trademark protection in India.
India's First Accepted Olfactory Trademark: The Sumitomo Case
The trademark application was submitted to the Trade Marks Registry by the Japanese tyre producer, Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd., regarding the protection of "floral fragrance or smell similar to roses as used on tyres." Though on the surface the application appeared unusual, considering that tyres are often known for their usual rubber smell, rather than any pleasant floral aroma.
In examination, the Trade Marks Registry raised two major objections on:

Whether the fragrance satisfied the statutory requirement of representation.

Whether the scent was distinctive enough to serve as a trademark.

To prove the first objection wrong, the applicant used a new innovative technology, known as the seven-dimensional olfactory vector model, which was designed by the scientists at IIT-Allahabad. In lieu of simply stating the smell in words, the model deals with scientific aspects of scent, covering 7 measurable aroma categories which include floral, fruity, woody, nutty, pungent, sweet, and minty. By assigning measurable values to each category, the model is able to generate objective Odor characteristics.
The Registry further evaluated the inherent distinctiveness of the fragrance. It found that consumers do not typically expect tyres to exhibit floral fragrance. The rose essence had neither an inherent nor functional connection with tyres, nor does it enhance the quality, safety, or usability of tyres. Thus, the fragrance serves merely as a marketing element. The innovative nature of combining floral scents with tyres allowed the creation of a memorable fragrance capable of pinpointing the source of the product.
As a result, the Registry accepted the application for publication, thus becoming the first to accept the olfactory trademark application in India. Although the application is still undergoing the finalization process and is subject to opposition, its approval indicates a great advancement in the development of trademark law in India.
Legal Requirements
The decision by the Trade Marks Registry to accept the application of Sumitomo Rubber Industries was mainly premised on its ability to meet two basic conditions for registration of trademarks in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The first condition is Graphical Representation. According to Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, the trademark should be able to be graphically represented in order to define the subject matter of protection. While this requirement can easily be met in the case of traditional trademarks such as words or logos, fragrances have proved difficult since it is impossible to depict them using images. Descriptions in writing have traditionally been regarded as subjective in nature, chemical formulae could describe the molecular structure of scents while scent samples would deteriorate over time. In order to resolve this problem, Sumitomo used the seven-dimensional vector olfactory model created by IIIT-Allahabad. This enabled the fragrance of the rose to be scientifically described through seven basic olfactory elements.
Secondly, the second requirement is Distinctiveness as provided for in Section 9(1)(a). A mark needs to be distinctive in that it will differentiate the goods of one trader from another and also serve as a source identifier. From the registry, it was noted that buyers naturally relate the smell of tyres to that of rubber and not flowers. The scent of the flowers did not have any natural association with the goods; hence, it was deemed arbitrary and distinctively serving to help buyers know the source of the goods.
Status of Olfactory Marks at International Level
Protection of olfactory trademarks has differed widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, since there are very few nations which have granted registration of smell marks because of the problems associated with it.
One of the earliest jurisdictions to register a smell trademark was the United Kingdom. In 1996, the UK Intellectual Property Office registered a trademark for the smell of roses used on tyres filed by Sumitomo Rubber Industries. The above-mentioned case helped show that arbitrary scent can serve as a trademark when it helps distinguish the products of the company from those of its competitors. In India, the UK judgment provided a useful precedent in consideration of the application filed by Sumitomo.
The United States takes quite a flexible stand in relation to non-traditional trademarks. The judgment In re Clarke was landmark for the case where the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recognized the scent of plumeria blossoms used in sewing threads as a valid trademark. However, the applicant should prove the functionality and distinctiveness of the fragrance; that is, consumers should consider the smell distinctive enough and link it with a certain commercial source. Hence, even though there are smell trademarks in America, there are very few of them.
However, the European Union has followed a much stricter regime when it comes to registering smell marks. In the well-known judgment of Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that the representation of the mark should be clear, precise, self-contained, intelligible, durable, and objective. It was held by the Court that descriptions, formulae, and Odor samples were insufficient in fulfilling these criteria. Even though the European Union now no longer has a mandatory requirement for graphic representations, but the problems that still persist with fragrance representation have made smell trademark registrations very rare indeed.
India's decision to accept the application filed by Sumitomo has thus put India amongst the few nations willing to consider legal protection of olfactory trademarks using technology.
Legal Challenges
Notwithstanding this crucial step forward, some issues are still relevant to olfactory trademarks. First, the most prominent one pertains to the subjectivity of human sense of smell, which differs from person to person depending on biological and cultural influences. This means that measuring similarities of two fragrances is much harder than comparison of visual trademarks.
Secondly, there are no globally recognized scientific methods of fragrance representation, even though the seven-dimensional olfactory vector system is indeed an important step forward, its adoption internationally is still far from certain. Another problem relates to enforcement, as establishing infringement would be impossible without resorting to scientifically based analysis.
Furthermore, trademark examiners need to possess highly specialized technical knowledge to analyse olfactory representations in a consistent manner. Without clear guidelines and examiner training, this process could lead to inconsistency in decision-making.
Future Prospects
The acceptance of Sumitomo Rubber Industries' application marks a significant milestone in the evolution of trademark law in India and reflects the growing recognition of sensory branding. As businesses increasingly seek protection for non-conventional trademarks, the need for a dedicated legal framework governing olfactory marks is likely to become more pronounced. To ensure consistency and legal certainty, the Trade Marks Registry may consider issuing specific examination guidelines, adopting standardised scientific methods for scent representation, and providing specialised training to trademark examiners. Such measures would facilitate the effective examination of future smell trademark applications while encouraging innovation in brand protection.
Despite this landmark development, India's first accepted olfactory trademark has not yet attained final registration. The application was accepted and advertised by the Trade Marks Registry on 21 November 2025 but was opposed on 17 March 2026, and its registration remains pending. The outcome of the opposition proceedings will be closely watched, as it may influence the future recognition and examination of olfactory trademarks in India. Regardless of the final decision, the acceptance of the application has already initiated an important shift in India's trademark landscape by encouraging greater recognition of emerging forms of intellectual property and sensory branding.
Conclusion
Acceptance of the first olfactory trademark application by India is one of those events which transform the whole field of intellectual property in the country. This shows that the Trade Marks Registry of India is willing to go beyond the conventional trademark categories and accept scientific advancements because of changing commercial environment. The acceptance of an objective way of describing the smell is a proof that scientific development can help overcome legal obstacles.
However, the process of introducing olfactory trademarks into the trademark law of India is far from completion. The course of the opposition procedures will decide whether the application will be registered or not and, therefore, what the future of sensory trademark protection in India will be like. In any case, this decision has set a very important precedent and opened the way for the discussion about recognizing unconventional trademarks in India.

Historically, trademark laws have safeguarded aspects of commerce that consumers can easily identify which includes product design, brand name, logo, colours, and sounds to some extent. However, in the wake of marketers seeking to provide memorable customer experiences, branding has evolved beyond the visual and auditory. In the present day, businesses started using other sensory channels such as scents as a way of connecting to consumers on an emotional level. Thus, before the term sensory branding was coined, numerous changes in trademark laws occurred, including the emergence of the olfactory mark concept.

Recently, there has been a significant event in this area in India, the Trade Marks Registry approved the application made by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. for the rose fragrance used in Tyres. The acceptance decision was made in November, 2025, which is the first instance of the olfactory mark approved at the examination stage in India. Although now the application is at the opposition stage and has not been registered yet, its approval hints at a new stage in intellectual property law development in India.

Understanding Olfactory Marks

An olfactory trademark, also known as a smell mark or scent mark, refers to a unique smell that distinguishes the source of a product or service in commerce. Like any other type of trademark, its main function is to differentiate products of various traders and allow the buyer to link a specific product to the relevant business.

While other trademarks can be seen, smell trademarks can only be felt. They lack the visibility of words, images, or designs. Moreover, people's perceptions of a smell differ from person to person based on the biological, cultural, and surrounding conditions.

It is crucial to differentiate between a regular fragrance and a scent mark. A lot of products have a smell inherent in them or added for practical purposes. For example, most of perfumes have a commercial value thanks to their fragrance. Similarly, soaps, detergents, and air fresheners tend to have a nice smell. However, such scents have no trademark significance in the eyes of consumers, who perceive them as product characteristics, rather than a symbol of brand.

In contrast, a smell trademark identifies the source of a product using a scent that is completely unrelated to the actual product and has neither functional or intrinsic properties. For instance, a rose fragrance on vehicle tires would be uncommon, because no consumer would associate the fragrance of roses with vehicle tires. That sort of artificial, non-descriptive smell could make the tires easily distinguishable and give rise to an exclusive brand image.

Worldwide, there have been very few olfactory trademarks recognized due to the considerable legal and practical difficulties entailed in their registration. However, in light of increasing investment by corporations in sensory marketing, smell trademarks are becoming more and more significant in terms of their intellectual property value.

Legal Context Under The Trademark Act, 1999

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not give any clear recognition or prohibition to olfactory trademarks. However, the broad provisions created under this Act provide enough legal ground for protecting the non-conventional trademarks, including the olfactory trademark if it meets the legal requirements set by law.

As per Section 2(1)(zb), the term "trademark" means any mark which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and which is capable of being represented in a manner which enables the authorities and the public to determine the precise subject matter of the protection. Also, the "mark" is defined under Section 2(1)(m) as the device, brand, label, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape, configuration, pattern, packaging or combination thereof. Since this definition is inclusive, it means that the Act does not bar other possible types of trademarks, including olfactory trademarks.

Nevertheless, Section 9(1)(a) makes it illegal to register a mark which lacks distinctive character. Thus, smell trademark must be used as source identifier and should neither be descriptive nor perform a function. Further, the representation of a smell is a difficult task. In view of the above, distinctiveness, representation and non-functionality become the crucial requirements of smell trademark protection in India.

India's First Accepted Olfactory Trademark: The Sumitomo Case

The trademark application was submitted to the Trade Marks Registry by the Japanese tyre producer, Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd., regarding the protection of "floral fragrance or smell similar to roses as used on tyres." Though on the surface the application appeared unusual, considering that tyres are often known for their usual rubber smell, rather than any pleasant floral aroma.

In examination, the Trade Marks Registry raised two major objections on:

Whether the fragrance satisfied the statutory requirement of representation.
Whether the scent was distinctive enough to serve as a trademark.

To prove the first objection wrong, the applicant used a new innovative technology, known as the seven-dimensional olfactory vector model, which was designed by the scientists at IIT-Allahabad. In lieu of simply stating the smell in words, the model deals with scientific aspects of scent, covering 7 measurable aroma categories which include floral, fruity, woody, nutty, pungent, sweet, and minty. By assigning measurable values to each category, the model is able to generate objective Odor characteristics.

The Registry further evaluated the inherent distinctiveness of the fragrance. It found that consumers do not typically expect tyres to exhibit floral fragrance. The rose essence had neither an inherent nor functional connection with tyres, nor does it enhance the quality, safety, or usability of tyres. Thus, the fragrance serves merely as a marketing element. The innovative nature of combining floral scents with tyres allowed the creation of a memorable fragrance capable of pinpointing the source of the product.

As a result, the Registry accepted the application for publication, thus becoming the first to accept the olfactory trademark application in India. Although the application is still undergoing the finalization process and is subject to opposition, its approval indicates a great advancement in the development of trademark law in India.

Legal Requirements

The decision by the Trade Marks Registry to accept the application of Sumitomo Rubber Industries was mainly premised on its ability to meet two basic conditions for registration of trademarks in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The first condition is Graphical Representation. According to Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, the trademark should be able to be graphically represented in order to define the subject matter of protection. While this requirement can easily be met in the case of traditional trademarks such as words or logos, fragrances have proved difficult since it is impossible to depict them using images. Descriptions in writing have traditionally been regarded as subjective in nature, chemical formulae could describe the molecular structure of scents while scent samples would deteriorate over time. In order to resolve this problem, Sumitomo used the seven-dimensional vector olfactory model created by IIIT-Allahabad. This enabled the fragrance of the rose to be scientifically described through seven basic olfactory elements.

Secondly, the second requirement is Distinctiveness as provided for in Section 9(1)(a). A mark needs to be distinctive in that it will differentiate the goods of one trader from another and also serve as a source identifier. From the registry, it was noted that buyers naturally relate the smell of tyres to that of rubber and not flowers. The scent of the flowers did not have any natural association with the goods; hence, it was deemed arbitrary and distinctively serving to help buyers know the source of the goods.

Status of Olfactory Marks at International Level

Protection of olfactory trademarks has differed widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, since there are very few nations which have granted registration of smell marks because of the problems associated with it.

One of the earliest jurisdictions to register a smell trademark was the United Kingdom. In 1996, the UK Intellectual Property Office registered a trademark for the smell of roses used on tyres filed by Sumitomo Rubber Industries. The above-mentioned case helped show that arbitrary scent can serve as a trademark when it helps distinguish the products of the company from those of its competitors. In India, the UK judgment provided a useful precedent in consideration of the application filed by Sumitomo.

The United States takes quite a flexible stand in relation to non-traditional trademarks. The judgment In re Clarke was landmark for the case where the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recognized the scent of plumeria blossoms used in sewing threads as a valid trademark. However, the applicant should prove the functionality and distinctiveness of the fragrance; that is, consumers should consider the smell distinctive enough and link it with a certain commercial source. Hence, even though there are smell trademarks in America, there are very few of them.

However, the European Union has followed a much stricter regime when it comes to registering smell marks. In the well-known judgment of Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that the representation of the mark should be clear, precise, self-contained, intelligible, durable, and objective. It was held by the Court that descriptions, formulae, and Odor samples were insufficient in fulfilling these criteria. Even though the European Union now no longer has a mandatory requirement for graphic representations, but the problems that still persist with fragrance representation have made smell trademark registrations very rare indeed.

India's decision to accept the application filed by Sumitomo has thus put India amongst the few nations willing to consider legal protection of olfactory trademarks using technology.

Legal Challenges

Notwithstanding this crucial step forward, some issues are still relevant to olfactory trademarks. First, the most prominent one pertains to the subjectivity of human sense of smell, which differs from person to person depending on biological and cultural influences. This means that measuring similarities of two fragrances is much harder than comparison of visual trademarks.

Secondly, there are no globally recognized scientific methods of fragrance representation, even though the seven-dimensional olfactory vector system is indeed an important step forward, its adoption internationally is still far from certain. Another problem relates to enforcement, as establishing infringement would be impossible without resorting to scientifically based analysis.

Furthermore, trademark examiners need to possess highly specialized technical knowledge to analyse olfactory representations in a consistent manner. Without clear guidelines and examiner training, this process could lead to inconsistency in decision-making.

Future Prospects

The acceptance of Sumitomo Rubber Industries' application marks a significant milestone in the evolution of trademark law in India and reflects the growing recognition of sensory branding. As businesses increasingly seek protection for non-conventional trademarks, the need for a dedicated legal framework governing olfactory marks is likely to become more pronounced. To ensure consistency and legal certainty, the Trade Marks Registry may consider issuing specific examination guidelines, adopting standardised scientific methods for scent representation, and providing specialised training to trademark examiners. Such measures would facilitate the effective examination of future smell trademark applications while encouraging innovation in brand protection.

Despite this landmark development, India's first accepted olfactory trademark has not yet attained final registration. The application was accepted and advertised by the Trade Marks Registry on 21 November 2025 but was opposed on 17 March 2026, and its registration remains pending. The outcome of the opposition proceedings will be closely watched, as it may influence the future recognition and examination of olfactory trademarks in India. Regardless of the final decision, the acceptance of the application has already initiated an important shift in India's trademark landscape by encouraging greater recognition of emerging forms of intellectual property and sensory branding.

Conclusion

Acceptance of the first olfactory trademark application by India is one of those events which transform the whole field of intellectual property in the country. This shows that the Trade Marks Registry of India is willing to go beyond the conventional trademark categories and accept scientific advancements because of changing commercial environment. The acceptance of an objective way of describing the smell is a proof that scientific development can help overcome legal obstacles.

However, the process of introducing olfactory trademarks into the trademark law of India is far from completion. The course of the opposition procedures will decide whether the application will be registered or not and, therefore, what the future of sensory trademark protection in India will be like. In any case, this decision has set a very important precedent and opened the way for the discussion about recognizing unconventional trademarks in India.