Mint Explainer | India just approved its first scent trademark—here’s what it means for brands

In a move that could reshape how brands think about identity, the Trade Marks Registry has accepted a rose fragrance infused into tyres as a trademark, breaking new ground for sensory branding in India. Until now, scents were considered almost impossible to protect because they couldn’t be clearly represented on paper.

Experts say the ruling opens the door for everything from perfumes and cosmetics to hotels and luxury retailers to claim legal ownership over their signature smells.

Mint explains why this matters for Indian businesses.

What is this fragrance-based trademark?

At the heart of this case is a simple but unusual idea: treating a scent the way we treat a logo. On 21 November, the Trade Marks Registry accepted India’s first-ever fragrance trademark—a rose-like floral scent applied to tyres, filed by Japanese multinational Sumitomo Rubber Industries.

The Registry ruled that the scent met legal requirements of distinctiveness and graphical representation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The application, filed in March 2023, had earlier been rejected for lack of distinctiveness and for failing to meet the graphical-representation requirement. After an examination report in August 2023 and multiple hearings, the Registry appointed senior intellectual property lawyer Pravin Anand as amicus curiae because the subject was unprecedented.

Why was it accepted?

What tipped the balance was a mix of scientific evidence and the company’s long history of using the scent. The amicus submitted a scientific analysis, including a graphical olfactory model developed by researchers at the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) Allahabad.

Sumitomo argued that it has infused this rose-like fragrance into its tyres since 1995 and that the scent has acquired international recognition. It relied heavily on its UK registration for the same scent, considered the first accepted smell trademark in that jurisdiction.

The amicus also pointed out that Indian law does not explicitly recognize or prohibit smell marks. Given the broad definition of a “mark", such protection is possible if statutory conditions are satisfied. He noted that the smell of roses is arbitrary and inherently distinctive when used on tyres, allowing earlier objections to be removed.

One core challenge was proving that a scent could be represented with clarity and objectivity. To address this, Sumitomo used a scientific model that maps the smell in a seven-dimensional space based on fundamental fragrance groups. The Registry found this method sufficiently clear, precise and durable for trademark purposes.

It also noted that the smell of roses has no natural link to tyres and sharply departs from the usual smell of rubber, making it likely that consumers would associate it with a single source. This distinctiveness qualified the fragrance for protection.

What is India’s legal position on unconventional trademarks?

India has traditionally been cautious about unconventional trademarks. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, requires marks to be graphically representable and able to distinguish goods or services—criteria that have historically favoured more conventional signs.

In practice, India has protected shape marks such as the Coca-Cola bottle, and sound marks such as the Yahoo yodel and ICICI Bank’s jingle. The Trade Marks Rules, 2017, expanded this to include colour combinations and motion marks.

But sensory marks like smell, taste and texture have remained outside the system. This ruling marks the first time a scent has been formally recognized under Indian law.

What are the global examples?

Globally, a handful of countries allow scent trademarks in principle, but successful registrations are rare because the standards for distinctiveness, non-functionality and representation are high. Jurisdictions such as the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, South Korea, and New Zealand recognize the possibility of olfactory marks.

Some well-known examples include the Play-Doh scent in the US, the smell of freshly cut grass for tennis balls in the European Union, and eucalyptus-scented golf tees in Australia.

Still, most applications do not make it through. Proving that consumers associate a particular smell with a single brand typically requires expensive scientific testing and extensive evidence, making the process both costly and time-consuming.

To illustrate how tough the bar is for non-traditional trademarks more broadly, consider the US case of motorbike giant Harley-Davidson. In 1994, the company filed to trademark the famous “potato-potato" rumble of its V-Twin engines, claiming the sound had become a unique identifier of its brand.

Several rival manufacturers objected, arguing the noise resulted from common engine design and wasn’t exclusive to Harley. Because the dispute dragged on and the sound appeared functional rather than purely distinctive, Harley-Davidson withdrew its application in 2000, and the engine sound never received trademark protection.

Which categories could benefit?

Lawyers say the ruling could encourage a wave of scent-based branding, especially in sectors where fragrance strongly influences consumer choice. Automotive products like tyres may lean on distinctive scents for brand recall. Home-care and cleaning products, including air fresheners, fabric sprays and detergents, may explore securing signature fragrances.

Hospitality and retail spaces such as hotels, airlines, and luxury stores, which already use ambient scents to shape customer experience, might seek protection for these fragrances. Consumer goods like toys, stationery and packaging could also deploy unexpected scents as identifiers. Beauty and cosmetics companies, including perfume and soap makers, may try to trademark scent signatures tied closely to brand identity.

Food and beverage players may consider aroma-based branding too, though securing protection for food-related smells is more complex.

“The jurisprudence on non-traditional marks has much room for creativity. Any sign, whether smell, taste, movement, texture, sound, shape or visual, if unique and distinctive, can be protected as a trademark," noted As Swati Sharma, partner and head of intellectual property at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

Sharma’s legal team represented Sumitomo Rubber Industries in the trademark matter.

JV Abhay, partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, added that the acceptance shows the Registry’s openness to non-traditional marks such as scents and taste, provided applicants meet the evidentiary threshold, allowing businesses to pursue more holistic, multi-sensory branding.

Will it lead to more scent-based disputes?

Most likely. Lawyers expect more fragrance-related applications, which could in turn lead to a rise in disputes. Comparing scents is far more subjective than comparing words, shapes or logos, which means both opposition and infringement proceedings may need expert testimony and scientific analysis.

As Ronil Goger, managing partner at Blaze Legal, explained, “The acceptance is expected to encourage fragrance and cosmetic businesses to explore trademark protection for their signature scents. As more filings emerge, infringement actions may involve complex scientific testing and expert analysis of olfactory impressions."

Challenges for small beauty and perfume startups

But this new frontier comes with barriers. Sumitomo’s application relied heavily on laboratory modelling and scientific representation, tools that many smaller beauty and perfume brands may not have the resources to commission. Gathering evidence of distinctiveness, hiring experts and defending applications against objections all involve significant costs.

Ultimately, this could favour larger corporations with deeper research and legal capabilities, placing smaller players at a disadvantage.