India’s first smell mark: Sumitomo rose-scented tires

Until about the mid 20th century, trademarks applied only to logos or wordmarks, until the category was expanded to include sounds such as the Intel “bong” and colors like Tiffany Blue. Now India joins the nations that recognize an even more elusive sense than sight and hearing: smell.

In November 2025, India approved the application filed by Japanese company Sumitomo Rubber Industries for a scent described as, “Floral fragrance / smell reminiscent of roses as applied to [tires]”. The move signals a decisive shift in the way Indian trademark law engages with non-traditional marks.

Distinctive and non-functional smell key to register an olfactory trademark

In the consumer’s mind, smell is frequently more persistent and emotionally resonant than sight and sound. What’s more, it is ephemeral yet distinct, and inherent to particular products and produce. But why tires?

Infusing tires with the scent of roses appears counter-intuitive: there is no natural connection between red petals and rubber. Yet for precisely this reason, the scent can function as a strong source identifier once it is legally recognized. If a smell is essential to a product’s use or quality, for example in cheese or tea, it is therefore a functional feature and cannot be protected. But rose-scented tires? Here, the fragrance serves purely as brand identification.

Yet smell marks have posed significant challenges to trademark systems worldwide due to the difficulty in representing odors graphically and objectively. India’s Trade Marks Act, 1999, does not explicitly exclude smells from trademark protection if represented graphically. Prior to November, however, the Indian registry had not accepted a smell mark before.

7D olfactory vector for scent mark’s graphical representation

Sumitomo’s rose-scented tire – published in TM Journal No. 2236, application No. 5860303, Class 12 – was not new to trademark protection. In the United Kingdom, its smell mark has been on the register since 1996, providing a persuasive precedent that helped support distinctiveness and non-functionality arguments in India. However, India’s own trademark provisions, which demand graphical representation, presented unique challenges.

The Sumitomo case built on and internalized the principles articulated in the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) 2002 Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt ruling, which specifies that signs that cannot be perceived visually must be represented in a manner that is “clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective”.

To secure a smell mark, merely submitting a chemical formula, odor sample or written description, does not meet the requirements of graphic representability.

In India, this meant that a purely verbal description of the scent was insufficient, that a chemical formula or sample alone could not meet the standard of clarity and objectivity, and that the representation needed to bridge scientific measurability and legal intelligibility.

The hallmark of this case was the fusion of legal reasoning with scientific characterization. During the hearing, Sumitomo presented comprehensive graphical representation prepared by the Indian Institute of Information Technology Allahabad.

A mathematical vectograph helped the team to map the scent across seven fundamental coordinates: floral, fruity, woody, nutty, pungent, sweet and minty. This transformation of subjective experience into objective measurement proved “clear, precise, and objective”, satisfying legal requirements in India through a fusion of law and science.

Science to mark a branded scent

To make an inherently ephemeral attribute such as scent satisfy the demands of Indian trademark law, Sumitomo and its collaborating experts adopted a multilayered evidentiary strategy that went beyond graphical representation.

Sumitomo used analytical techniques, such as gas chromatography and mass spectrometry, to define the molecular fingerprint of its rose fragrance, providing a reproducible and objective basis for its identification.

Fragrance and olfactory specialists produced sworn statements attesting to the uniqueness and non-functional nature of Sumitomo’s scent, clarifying that it serves as a brand identifier and not as a performance feature of its tire.

And evidence that the fragrance remains stable and consistently perceptible in the product lifecycle supported its reliability as a trademark element.

Sumitomo’s integrated approach did more than satisfy formal criteria. It also created a prototype for how Indian and other institutions can bring together legal experts, technologists and domain scientists to support non-traditional trademark claims.

Setting precedents for smell trademarks

Around the world, olfactory marks occupy a narrow but strategically significant niche. The UK’s acceptance of Sumitomo’s smell mark in 1996 provided an early international precedent, but different countries have taken varied stances.

In the European Union, smell marks remain impossible to register, even post-Sieckmann. The latest EUIPO guidelines currently consider olfactory or taste marks not acceptable, assuming that the current state of “generally available technology” does not allow these types of marks to be represented according to the criteria laid out in the Sieckmann case.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) accepts scent marks but requires proof of acquired distinctiveness through consumer recognition, as well as rigorous examination of non-functionality.

With its acceptance of Sumitomo’s rose-scented tire, India joined the global landscape, becoming a jurisdiction willing to recognize olfactory marks provided applicants can align with high standards of clarity, objectivity and evidential rigor.

For policymakers and business leaders, the significance of this development extends beyond a single mark. The case has generated key strategic implications that can be implemented worldwide.

First among them, is to introduce formal guidelines for sensory marks. The Sumitomo case is evidence of the importance of the development of clear examination norms, checklists and standard operating procedures for smell marks, all of which would reduce uncertainty for innovators and limit the subjectivity of examiners.

The case also communicates the necessity of a healthy connection between science and IP. Sumitomo’s reliance on advanced analytics, electronic noses and AI-based scent profiling signals a future in which scientific infrastructure underpins brand protection as much as product design.

Better enforcement and anti-counterfeiting measures are essential too. A registered scent functions as both a distinctive market signal and an enforcement handle, acting as a deterrent to counterfeiters who might seek to copy a brand’s sensory identity.

Viksit Bharat and global scaling of scent branding

In India in particular, the Sumitomo case suggests a broader blueprint for aligning IP, innovation and branding with the Viksit Bharat initiative – the Government of India’s goal to transform the nation into a self-reliant, prosperous country by 2047, the 100th anniversary of its independence.

The development also strengthens the case for enhanced branding for Indian enterprises. Scent-led differentiation could give Indian companies – particularly in textiles, food, hospitality, mobility and wellness – a robust competitive edge if they pair distinctive sensory experiences with a deliberate IP strategy. The acceptance of Sumitomo’s rose-scented tire is best understood as a proof-of-concept rather than an anomaly. It demonstrates that when applicants combine creativity in branding with robust scientific and legal preparation, the Indian system is capable of accommodating cutting-edge non-traditional marks.

To translate this into a scalable practice, the regulatory, professional and innovation ecosystems must evolve in tandem: trademark authorities must build on this precedent; IP practitioners, brand strategists and scientists must collaborate systematically; and we should encourage enterprises to leverage sensory IP as part of their go-to-market and internationalization strategies.

If these ecosystems align, India and other countries can use smell marks not just as legal curiosities but as active instruments for value creation, export competitiveness and cultural differentiation.