A Historic Shift in Indian IP Laws: The Nation’s First Odor Trademark

With the registration of its first-ever odor (scent) trademark, India entered a new era in trademark protection on November 21, 2025. Sumitomo Rubber Industries was granted an exclusive right to a rose-like fragrance applied to tyres, ending decades of uncertainty for scent marks in the country.

This ground-breaking decision changes the way in which brands can protect sensory experiences. It aligns India with progressive jurisdictions that recognise smells as legitimate trademarks. From perfume houses to car giants, companies now have new ways to differentiate products with distinctive smells. This blog explores the journey, challenges, global context, and far-reaching implications of India’s pioneering olfactory trademark. All trademark registration seekers must know about this form of trademark.

What is an Odor Trademark?

The Odor trademark is a non-traditional trademark that safeguards a particular smell in each product. It uses smell instead of relying on words, logos, or some visual symbol.

Companies register unique fragrances so as not to let competitors copy the exact aroma associated with their brand.

Examples –

• Fresh strawberry smell for tyres
• The characteristic smell for Play-Doh.

However, few odor trademarks exist, since proving distinctiveness and representing the scent graphically remains extremely difficult for applicants and trademark offices.

Definition and Global Understanding of Non-Traditional Marks

Non-traditional marks fall outside the realm of classic words, logos, and images.

This category also includes the following:

• Sounds
• Colours
• Shapes
• Motions
• Holograms
• Textures
• Tastes
• Scents

Today, many countries accept non-traditional marks provided they distinguish goods or services from others.

• The European Union accepts most types if the applicant proves acquired distinctiveness through use.
• The United States accepts the US trademark registration of sounds, scents, and colours under very strict conditions.

The global rules call for the mark to be non-functional and capable of graphic representation. Since each jurisdiction has different standards, they pose a challenge to worldwide brand protection strategies.

Why Scent Marks Are the Most Challenging Sensory Trademark?

Scent marks face unique hurdles compared to sound or colour trademarks. There are following challenges listed below:

• Smells are subjective and difficult to describe objectively.
• Trademark offices demand an accurate, non-verbal representation, often, this leads to refusals. Odors obviously dissipate over time and differ according to the perception of the individual.
• Applicants must prove consumers associate the smell with a brand, not with product characteristics.

Furthermore, functional smells that enhance the product itself cannot be protected. Because of these combined factors, successful odor trademark registrations are exceedingly rare worldwide.

Talk To Expert

India’s First Registered Odor Trademark: A Groundbreaking Case

On November 21, 2025, the Indian Trade Marks Registry granted acceptance to the first olfactory trademark, Sumitomo Rubber Industries. It obtained protection for a rose-like floral fragrance infused into tyres. Thus, for the very first time in Indian IP history, protection over a non-traditional sensory mark has been granted, thereby setting a precedent for future registration.

Details of the Trademark Granted

The mark is for the floral fragrance or smell of roses applied to tyres. It claims Class 12 (vehicles and tyres) under the Nice Classification. After initially being objected under Sections 9(1)(a) and 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for want of distinctiveness and graphical representation, the mark cleared those obstacles.

The Registry considered the scent to be clear, precise, intelligible, objective, self-contained, and durable, satisfying the European Sieckmann criteria. A seven-dimensional olfactory vector, prepared based on inputs by professors in the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Allahabad, was taken to represent the graphical depiction. The mark now proceeds to advertisement under Section 20 as an olfactory trademark.

Applicant Background & the Distinctive Scent

Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. (Japanese multinational tyre manufacturer), known for brands like Dunlop, since 1995, it has filled tyres with this rose-like floral scent as a way to provide a unique product identifier. The scent evokes roses and produces an identifiable sensory experience without providing any useful benefits necessary to mask odors or other functionalities.

This non-functional aroma assists the consumer in associating the fragrance directly with Sumitomo’s tyres. The same mark was registered by it in the UK in 1996, reinforcing its global strategy on the same. The legal assistance was provided by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, assisted by Pravin Anand as amicus curiae to argue the validity thereof under Indian law.

Read more – Why the Trademark Symbol Matters for Brand Identity?

Timeline of the Application and Final Registration

Sumitomo filed the application on March 23, 2023. The Registry issued initial objections in 2023 for distinctiveness and graphical issues. Pravin Anand was appointed amicus curiae to provide expert analysis. Supporting scientific reports and international precedents were submitted throughout 2024 and early 2025.

On November 21, 2025, Controller General Prof. Unnat P. Pandit accepted the mark for advertisement. This clears the path for opposition periods, with full registration expected after any challenges, marking over two and a half years from filing to this milestone.

Evolution of Non-Conventional Trademarks in India

Trademarks in India have evolved from rigid visual protections to embracing sensory elements under the Trade Marks Act 1999. Initially set on words and logos, the law expanded to include shapes, packaging, and colour combinations through Sections 2(1) (zb) and 2(1)(m).

The 2017 Trade Marks Rules then formalised procedures for sound marks with audio submissions. This has been further elaborated in some judicial precedents, such as Yahoo’s 2008 Yodel registration, which marked the shift. Colour protections for Cadbury’s purple and shape marks for Coca-Cola’s bottle followed.

Fully in tune with TRIPS obligations and global trends, this prepared the ground for the 2025 olfactory breakthrough of Sumitomo’s rose-scented tyre mark.

From Traditional to Unconventional: Sound, Colour, Shape, and Now Smell

Traditional trademarks in India revolved around visible identifiers, such as names, logos, and symbols, which were easily graphically representable and distinctive. However, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, expanded the definition of a mark to shapes of goods, packaging, and colour combinations and thus gave protection to non-literal elements.

The first invented sound marks were those of Yahoo! Inc.’s yodel, registered in 2008 as an MP³ file with notations in staff (musical) notation, acting as a precedent for audio branding. ICICI Bank’s jingle and Britannia’s four-note bell soon followed under Rule 26(5) of the 2017 Rules, which limits clips to 30 seconds.

Colour marks were next in Cadbury’s distinctive purple for chocolate packaging, which established acquired distinctiveness through consumer surveys in court, despite functional challenges to registering single hues for subjective reasons. Three-dimensional shape marks protected three-dimensional shapes, such as the contoured bottle of Coca-Cola and the triangular prism of Toblerone, rejecting functional designs according to Section 9.

Now comes smell, with Sumitomo Rubber Industries’ 2025 rose-like fragrance for tyres represented by a seven-dimensional olfactory vector that overcame graphical representations and moved toward fuller sensory protections.

Read more – Importance of Accurate Trademark Classifications

Key Judicial and Legislative Milestones Before the Odor Mark Era

The Trade Marks Act 1999 laid down the legislative framework by including shapes, packaging, and colours in its definition of trademarks under Section 2(1) (zb). Further, the 2017 Trade Marks Rules took this ahead by distinctly providing for sound mark filings through audio clips and notations. Yahoo Inc v Trade Marks Registry, in 2008, judicially approved the first sound mark: the yodel, confirming non-visual protections. Colgate Palmolive cases, on colour combinations for toothpaste stripes, emphasised non-functionality.

Gorbatschow Vodka v John Distilleries clarified the shape mark validity on bottle designs with the requirement of secondary meaning. These actions constructed acquired distinctiveness doctrines, setting aside paths for olfactory advancements in proving sensory marks’ registrability through evidence and graphical analogues.

Legal Hurdles in Odor Trademark Registration in India

India’s first odor trademark succeeded in clearing the three major barriers under the Trade Marks Act 1999. The Registry accepted a novel graphical representation of the scent, which overcame subjectivity concerns and confirmed that the rose-like fragrance held no functional purpose while acquiring distinctiveness through long use. This landmark decision removed the previous practical impossibilities for olfactory marks.

Graphical Representation Requirement Under the Trademarks Act, 1999

Section 2(1)(zb) requires that every trademark be represented graphically for registration. While traditional marks utilise words or images, scents lack visual form. The Trademark Act prescribes a clear, precise, intelligible, durable, and objective representation based on Sieckmann criteria from European law.

Few earlier attempts failed because the chemical formulas or written descriptions proved inadequate or subjective. The Sumitomo case came up before the courts in 2025 with a breakthrough solution fully meeting such tough standards for the first time in Indian practice.

Proving Distinctiveness and Non-Functionality of Scents

Odors lacking inherent distinctiveness, or serving functional purposes, face rejection under Section 9(1). Most odors are non-registrable because they describe the product or mask odors. Sumitomo proved the rose-like odor played no technical function like masking rubber odor, and was just to serve as a brand differentiator.

Evidence made available established that after several years of use through a consistent policy, customers directly associated the smell with the source of the tyres, thus acquiring a distinctive character. Extensive market surveys and affidavits proved the odor served as a secondary indicator, other than for describing the tyre, satisfying objections of absolute grounds for refusal.

How the Applicant Satisfied the “Capable of Being Represented Graphically” Criterion?

Sumitomo worked with professors at IIIT Allahabad to devise a seven-dimensional olfactory vector that maps the characteristics of scent:

• Intensity
• Persistence
• Sweetness
• Floral notes
• Freshness
• Diffusion
• Emotional response

This scientific model translates the rose-like fragrance into numerical and visual data points, forming a clear, objective, durable graphical record.

The Registry accepted this vector as being precise, self-contained, and accessible, fully meeting Sieckmann standards. In combination with a detailed written description, the representation eliminated subjectivity concerns that blocked earlier scent applications nationwide.

Comparison with Global Jurisdictions

India’s 2025 odor trademark for rose-scented tyres reflects progressive global approaches while adopting the EU’s Sieckmann criteria for graphical representation. The US pioneered scent protections under the Lanham Act. Countries, the UK and the Australia have registered non-functional smells. Singapore eases barriers by omitting visual requirements. These precedents bolster India’s sensory branding evolution.

United States: The Lanham Act and Famous Scent Mark Precedents

US trademark law relies on the Lanham Act of 1946 without excluding non-traditional marks like scents. Section 2(f) allows registration if the scent proves non-functional and distinctive through acquired secondary meaning.

The first scent mark granted in 1990 was a case entitled In re Clarke to a plumeria blossom fragrance for yarn establishing viability. Other cases include strawberry scent for Play-Doh and high-impact smell for coated sandpaper. No infringement suits have tested these marks as yet, but they underline consumer association over functionality like odour masking.

European Union: Sieckmann Criteria and Its Influence on India

The EU Trademark Regulation permits olfactory marks, provided the latter are graphically represented in accordance with the December 2002 ruling of Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- Und Markenamt.

The Court required representations to be clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable, and objective, rejecting mere chemical formulas or descriptions. A few registrations resulted, such as the UK’s pre-Sieckmann fresh grass scent for tennis balls. The Indian decision of Sumitomo (2025) applied these criteria directly with a view to validating a seven-dimensional olfactory vector for the rose fragrance; in this respect, Indian law joined the EU’s position regarding protectable non-traditional marks.

UK, Australia, and Singapore Approaches to Smell Marks

Before EU harmonisation, the UK had registered a rose fragrance for tyres and a bitter beer smell for darts under the Trade Marks Act 1994 in 1996. Non-visual marks were eased by amendments that removed graphical requirements in 2019, but scents remain rare.

Australia allows scents under the Trade Marks Act, if they are described verbally, such as apple blossom for tyres, emphasising this should be a non-natural, non-functional aroma. To date, there are only two active trademark registrations. Singapore has excluded the requirements of visual perceptibility under the Trade Marks Act; this has made odors more eligible without explicit graphical obstacles and fosters flexible sensory protections.

Technical and Practical Challenges of Registering Odor Trademarks

The following are some of the challenges that you might face while navigating to register odor trademarks:

• Smell perception is subjective and varies from one individual to another.
• There is no universal language to describe odors precisely.
• Physical scent samples cannot be attached to the register.
• The scents fade with time and cannot be used as permanent records.
• Proof of acquired distinctiveness requires costly consumer surveys.
• Functional fragrances that act in masking odors or perfuming products are unregistrable
• High risk of opposition due to novelty and perceived breadth of protection
• Examiners do not have effective tools at their disposal for checking representations submitted.
• Searching and prior art comparison remain nearly impossible.
• Enforcement against infringement is difficult without laboratory testing.

Describing a Smell Objectively Without Samples

Trademark offices cannot allow physical scent samples, since they fade easily and give rise to storage problems. Applicants have to depend on written or scientific descriptions only. Human perception of the same fragrance varies according to memory health and cultural background, making verbal descriptions inherently subjective.

Terms such as floral or fresh are not specific and do not pass legal Distinctiveness tests. Registries thus require objective, durable, and intelligible representations that any third party may understand without smelling the product. This compels innovators to develop intricate technical models, such as olfactory vectors or spectroscopic data, to convert a subjective experience into verifiable records.

Chemical Formula vs Verbal Description Debate

Chemical formulas can denote precise molecular composition, but rarely anything about the way that people perceive the final smell. Mixtures alter aroma profiles, and minor impurities make for dramatic changes in perception. The courts in Sieckmann and later cases rejected formulas as unsatisfactory because they are not a means of conveying what the consumer actually smells. Purely verbal descriptions-such as the smell of roses-failed on grounds of vagueness and subjectivity.

Modern solutions combine precise written descriptions with scientific measurement tools, such as gas chromatography or multidimensional vectors, which can satisfy both the requirements of accuracy and perceptual representation.

Examination and Opposition Risks Specific to Scent Marks

Scent marks attract increased scrutiny upon examination due to their rarity and complexity. The examiners frequently issue absolute grounds trademark objections on the lack of graphical representation and distinctiveness.

Unfamiliar nature of scent conveys filings, inviting third-party opposition from competitors based on a broad monopoly over common fragrances or the technical impossibility of enforcement. Evidence of consumer recognition by survey is frequently challenged on grounds of methodology and sample size. These all combine to make refusal and opposition rates far higher than for conventional trademarks.

Impact on the Indian IP Ecosystem and Industry

The 2025 registration of India’s first odor trademark is a point of inflexion for India’s intellectual property regime. It opens up protection beyond visual and auditory elements to full sensory branding. Firms can now obtain a monopoly on signature scents, facilitating investment in distinctive product experiences.

The ruling furthers India’s harmony with international norms and gives innovators greater confidence when pursuing broad trademark portfolios. It also fuels the development of law firms, technical institutes, and examiners in positions involving non-conventional marks.

Opportunities for Perfume, Food, Automotive, and Luxury Brands

Perfume houses can protect signature compositions applied to candles, textiles, or retail spaces. Food and beverage companies gain options to safeguard aroma profiles of packaged goods like coffee, spices, or confectionery.

Automotive players will be able to differentiate tyres, interiors, or lubricants with distinctive fragrances, as is the case with Sumitomo. Luxury brands may register ambient scents used in stores, packaging, or leather goods that would reinforce a premium identity. Retail chains, hotels, and airlines can trademark signature environmental fragrances. This opens up new revenue streams through licensing scent rights and strengthens enforcement against counterfeit products devoid of the protected aroma.

Boost to Innovation and Brand Differentiation Strategies

Recognition of scent marks incentivises research into non-functional fragrances serving exclusively as brand identifiers. Companies will invest in proprietary aroma technologies and collaborations with perfumers and research institutes. Marketers gain another layer to build emotional connections with consumers through multisensory experiences.

Startups and established players alike can create stronger recall and loyalty by combining visual, auditory, and now olfactory cues. The precedent encourages bolder experimentation across product categories while offering legal tools to protect these innovations from imitation.

Future of Sensory Trademarks in India

The Sumitomo decision marks a new beginning for sensory trademarks in India and acts as a beacon toward complete multisensory protection. Expect a spate of applications covering scents, tastes, and textures as brands start leveraging olfactory elements to create differentiation.

The Trade Marks Registry will develop examination procedures and begin adopting scientific tools such as scent vectors and AI-assisted verification. Legislative changes in 2025 will expand the definition under Section 2(1)(zb) to clearly encompass non-visual marks.

Judicial oversight will bring clarity to enforcement boundaries, allowing non-functional scents to qualify while rejecting utilitarian ones. This dispensation will position India in the frontline of sensory IP, with India joining the ranks of other developed jurisdictions and thereby spurring innovation in the perfume, food, and luxury sectors.

Expected Amendments and Judicial Interpretations Ahead

The Amendment to the Trademark Rules, 2025, seeks to add a definition for motion holograms and enhanced sensory marks with directions for scientific depictions. The Trade Marks Act may be amended so as to include rules for interpreting graphical equivalents, such as olfactory profiles, which specifically address existing gaps in the procedure.

The interpretation of Section 9 by the courts will, in all likelihood, be liberal by applying Sieckmann standards to confirm acquired distinctiveness through the survey. Future decisions may also examine infringement in sensory contexts that emphasise consumer association and functionality doctrines. Overall, these changes will regularise registrations, limit refusals, and assimilate with the WIPO norms to advance cross-border protection.

Conclusion

The first-ever odor trademark registration in November 2025 is a landmark extension of intellectual property protection into the sensory domain. By accepting a scientifically grounded olfactory vector for a rose-scented tyre, the Trade Marks Registry has eliminated long-standing obstacles and brought Indian law in line with global best practices.

Brands operating in the perfume, food, automotive, and luxury sectors now have a potent means to protect unique sensory signatures. This will lead to increased innovation, multisensory branding, and connecting with consumers. As examination guidelines develop and more sensory applications are made, India is cementing its status as a progressive jurisdiction in the ever-widening sphere of trademark law.

Seeking expert assistance in trademark registration or looking for trademark monitoring software in India? Talk to our experts at Corpbiz today.

Frequently Asked Questions about Trademark

Read more – Understanding the things that can be Trademarked