Redefining Sensory Branding in India: The Trademark Registry Greenlights Smell Mark

Introduction

On November 21, 2025, India’s Trade Marks Registry awarded its first smell trademark to Sumitomo Rubber Industries for rose-scented tyres, marking a paradigm shift for Indian intellectual property law and branding strategies. This milestone exemplifies the evolution of trademark protection in India, extending it beyond conventional visual and verbal marks into the realm of sensory experiences. Understanding how this development unfolded, its legal hurdles, and its implications for the Indian market requires a deep dive into the mechanics, motivations, and anticipated effects of olfactory branding.

What is a Smell Trademark and Why Does it Matter?

Smell or olfactory trademarks protect distinct scents as indicators of commercial origin, just like logos or words do for goods or services. Trademark laws traditionally focus on visual identifiers, but the growing importance of multi-sensory marketing has catalyzed a shift toward non-traditional marks, including sound, shape, and now, scent. The appeal is substantive: scents can trigger powerful emotional responses and brand recall, creating value that visual or word trademarks alone might not achieve.

Sumitomo’s move is grounded in the strategy of leveraging sensory uniqueness for product differentiation. A rose-scented tyre departs radically from standard expectations, not only helping the product stand out in a crowded marketplace but also embedding sensory cues into brand lore. The capacity for scents to evoke memories and positive associations makes this development commercially significant, heightening both the distinctiveness and memorability of Sumitomo’s offering.

Navigating Section 9 and Depicting Scent

India’s Trade Marks Act 1999 defines a trademark under Section 2(1)(zb) as “a mark that is capable of being represented graphically and distinguishing the goods or services.” However, Section 9 poses significant hurdles to unconventional marks, as it weeds out non-distinctive, technical, or functional features, and mandates precision in graphical representation.

Sumitomo’s application, filed in March 2023 under Class 12 for tyres, encountered a Section 9 objection, the Registry questioned whether a scent, inherently subjective and intangible, could be represented graphically and achieve distinctiveness. To overcome this, Sumitomo employed scientific methods to capture and describe the rose scent, including olfactory chemical profiles and standardized formulae. This practice is comparable to international precedents, such as in the EU and USA, where chromatographic data or chemical diagrams have helped applicants meet legal requirements.

The Registry’s acceptance, therefore, signals:

• A willingness to interpret “graphical representation” flexibly, accommodating scientific description as a functional proxy for visual depiction.
• A readiness to recognize non-visual sensory elements as capable of carrying “distinctive character.”

This expansion has far-reaching consequences, as it redefines what can constitute a trademark under Indian law and broadens the boundaries for brand innovators.

Distinctive Character

The crux of Sumitomo’s achievement lies in establishing “distinctive character” beyond traditional limits. Distinctiveness is the legal standard ensuring that consumers can reliably identify the commercial origin of goods. In the analysis of olfactory marks, several dimensions of distinctiveness emerge:

• Uniqueness in Commerce: Rose is not an odor ordinarily associated with tyres, and its deliberate addition creates immediate differentiation. The smell is neither functional nor incidental to the tyre, making its presence an “origin-indicating” feature rather than a utilitarian one.
• Perceptibility and Durability: Analysis must also consider whether the scent persists over the tyre’s typical life cycle and remains perceivable under regular usage conditions. Sumitomo documented the longevity and stability of the scent, reinforcing its reliability as a brand signal.
• Consumer Recognition: The mark’s validity depends on the likelihood that customers will come to associate the rose scent specifically with Sumitomo, rather than any tyre or product in general. Market studies or brand surveys, if presented, would further cement this point.

By scientifically establishing the presence, uniqueness, and stability of the scent, Sumitomo built a robust, well-founded basis for distinctiveness. Their approach grounds the legal concept of “source-identifying function” in empirical demonstration rather than abstract assertion, setting an analytical template for future applicants.

Implications: Broadening Horizons for Non-Traditional Marks

Sumitomo’s olfactory mark does more than set a legal precedent; it opens new vistas for Indian brand protection, strategy, and consumer engagement. The ramifications are multifaceted:

• Branding Innovation: Indian businesses now have the opportunity to explore sound, texture, taste, and scent in their trademark arsenal. This enables creative marketing, immersive customer experiences, and enhanced emotional resonance with brands.
• Regulatory Evolution: The Registry’s decision points to a growing sophistication in intellectual property adjudication, capable of adapting to advances in science and marketing. Future applications may see further evolution in criteria, evidence requirements, and representational standards.
• Market Dynamics: Products with sensory signatures can command premium pricing or niche positioning. The psychological impact of scent, used judiciously, may drive loyalty, recall, and brand affinity in sectors as varied as automotive, food, luxury, and retail.

A New Frontier for Indian Trademark Law

The grant of India’s first smell trademark is the product of deliberate legal reasoning, scientific validation, and visionary branding. Sumitomo’s rose-scented tyre represents a logical progression in the conception of “distinctive character,” moving decisively beyond visual and word marks to embrace sensory cues as reliable brand signifiers.

This analytical leap rests upon a convincing demonstration that scents can serve the function of distinguishing goods, are technically representable, and are legally protectable within the Indian framework. The precedent challenges businesses, regulators, and legal professionals to rethink the boundaries of intellectual property – encouraging innovation while demanding rigor in proof and application. As sensory branding gains ground, India’s trademark regime stands poised to absorb and propel this trend, inviting a future in which brands are not just seen or heard, but genuinely experienced.

Author:– Amrita Pradhan,  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

References

1. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Order Accepting Olfactory Mark Application No. 5860303 (Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. – Floral Fragrance/Smell Reminiscent of Roses as Applied to Tyres in Class 12), Trade Marks Registry, November 21, 2025, https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOPublication/1_69_1/olfactory-mark-order-sumitomo-2025.pdf.
2. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act No. 47 of 1999), § 2(1)(zb).
3. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act No. 47 of 1999), § 9(1)(a).
4. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act No. 47 of 1999), § 9(2)(a).
5. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Summary of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (India) – Provisions on Graphical Representation and Non-Traditional Marks, WIPO Lex No. IN093, https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/2400.
6. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guidelines for Examination of Non-Traditional Marks – Olfactory Marks (Section 2.9.2: Graphical Representation Requirements), Part B Examination, October 1, 2023, https://guidelines.euipo.europa.eu/1803468/1788452/trade-mark-guidelines/2-9-2-smell-olfactory-marks.
7. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) – Section 1202.13: Scents and Non-Visual Marks (Non-Functional and Distinctive), August 2024, https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e1.html.
8. Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), Non-Traditional Marks Guidelines – Olfactory Marks (Graphical Representation via Chemical Formulas), 2022, https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/images/non-traditional-marks-guidelines-2022.pdf.
9. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Trade Marks Journal No. 2236 – Advertisement of Olfactory Mark Application No. 5860303 (Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd.), November 24, 2025, https://ipindia.gov.in/journal-search.htm.
10. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Manual of Trade Marks Practice and Procedure – Examination of Non-Traditional Marks (Distinctive Character for Olfactory Signs), Intellectual Property India, 2023, https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/ev/IPOActs/1_31_1_manual-of-trade-marks-practice.pdf.
11. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Case C-273/00) – Judgment on Graphical Representation of Olfactory Marks (ECJ, December 12, 2002), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62000CJ0273.
12. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), In re Clarke (Serial No. 74/557,634) – Registration of Plumeria Blossom Scent for Thread (TTAB, 1990), https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=74557634&pty=CAN&eno=1.
13. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property – Article 6quinquies (Marks of International Reputation Including Non-Traditional), March 20, 1883 (as revised), https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/.