India's Trademark Registry Accepts Its First Smell Trademark For Japanese Company's Rose-Scented Tyres
The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks has accepted a Japanese company's application for a “floral fragrance/smell reminiscent of roses applied to tyres”, making it the first smell mark to be accepted for advertisement in India.The order dated November 21, 2025 directs that Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd.'s application in Class 12 be advertised on a “proposed to be...
The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks has accepted a Japanese company's application for a “floral fragrance/smell reminiscent of roses applied to tyres”, making it the first smell mark to be accepted for advertisement in India.
The order dated November 21, 2025 directs that Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd.'s application in Class 12 be advertised on a “proposed to be used basis” as an olfactory mark along with the graphical representation it submitted.
Sumitomo filed the application in March 2023. The Registry had initially objected under Sections 9(1)(a) and 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for lack of distinctiveness and the absence of a graphical representation.
Multiple hearings followed, and senior IP lawyer Pravin Anand was appointed amicus curiae. During the proceedings, three scientists from IIIT Allahabad created a scientific graphical representation of a rose-like smell by depicting it as a vector in a seven-dimensional space comprising floral, fruity, woody, nutty, pungent, sweet and minty as the fundamental smell dimensions. The applicant adopted this model.
The order records that Sumitomo told the Registry it has incorporated a rose-like fragrance into its tyres since 1995 and that the same mark was registered in the United Kingdom in 1996. The company submitted that the smell of roses is widely understood and that the fragrance, when applied to tyres, is inherently distinctive.
The amicus submitted that several jurisdictions recognise olfactory marks, and although Indian law does not expressly include smell within the definition of mark, it also does not exclude it. He described the rose scent applied to tyres as arbitrary and inherently distinctive.
In assessing whether the application met the requirement of graphical representation, the Controller General assessed the representation prepared by IIIT Allahabad.
After examining the representation, the Controller General stated, “ I am therefore of the considered opinion that the above representation sufficiently captures the metes and bounds of the smell in question and complies with the mandatory requirements of section 2(1)(zb) of the Act.”
On distinctiveness, the order notes that the scent of roses has no natural connection with tyres and is therefore arbitrary. Explaining how it would operate as a source identifier, the order states:
“When a vehicle fitted with tyres containing the present smell passes by, a customer perceiving the smell in question will have no difficulty in forming an association between the goods (tyres) and the source of the goods (the Applicant). This experience would leave a very strong impression upon such a customer as it would be in stark contrast with the smell of rubber that is usually expected while one is standing near a frequently used highway or a road.”
Consequently, the Registry observed that the rose-scent mark is clear, precise, intelligible, objective and graphically represented, satisfying trademark law requirements. It ordered the smell mark to be advertised as an “olfactory trademark” along with the graphical representation submitted by the applicant.
Sumitomo was represented by a team from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas comprising of Swati Sharma, Revanta Mathur and Sannat Chandna.
Mr. Pravin Anand was appointed as an amicus curiae by the Trademarks office.