Beyond Sight and Sound: India Embraces Olfactory Trademarks
Non-Conventional Marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999
Case: Sumitomo Rubber Industries case
In a landmark development for Indian trademark jurisprudence, the Indian Trade Marks Registry has, for the first time, accepted a smell-based trademark for registration. In November 2025, the Registry approved for advertisement an application filed by Sumitomo Rubber Industries, the Japanese manufacturer of Dunlop tyres, covering a “floral fragrance reminiscent of roses as applied to tyres.” This decision marks a significant step in the evolution of India’s intellectual property regime and signals growing openness toward non-conventional trademarks.
The acceptance of this olfactory mark underscores the Indian trademark system’s willingness to adapt to emerging branding practices and to align with global standards that recognize sensory identifiers beyond visual and auditory cues.
Background and Legal Context
Traditionally, trademark protection in India has been confined to marks capable of graphical representation, such as words, devices, labels, and combinations thereof. While sound marks and colour marks have gradually found acceptance, olfactory marks have long remained at the margins due to inherent challenges of subjectivity, transience, and representational difficulty.
Historically, applications for smell marks in India faced objections under:
- Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for lack of inherent distinctiveness; and
- Section 2(1)(zb), on the ground that a scent cannot be graphically represented with clarity and precision.
The Sumitomo application overcame these hurdles by adopting a scientific and objective approach to representation, thereby enabling the Registry to reassess long-standing assumptions surrounding olfactory trademarks.
Key Submissions and Registry’s Approach
Sumitomo Rubber Industries demonstrated that the rose fragrance applied to its tyres was non-functional, serving no technical or performance-related purpose, and was introduced solely as a brand identifier. To satisfy the graphical representation requirement, the applicant submitted a seven-dimensional olfactory vector model, capturing measurable parameters such as intensity, floral character, sweetness, and woody undertones.
The Registry accepted that this scientifically structured representation provided sufficient clarity, precision, and objectivity, enabling third parties and authorities alike to identify the scope of the mark. It further held that a rose scent is not a natural or inevitable characteristic of tyres and is therefore capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods from those of competitors.
Significance of the Decision
The acceptance of India’s first smell-based trademark carries far-reaching implications:
- Expansion of Trademark Subject Matter
The decision broadens the understanding of what constitutes a protectable trademark in India, extending protection beyond visual and auditory signs to include olfactory identifiers.
- Encouragement for Sensory Branding
Brands, both domestic and international, are now encouraged to explore multisensory branding strategies, particularly in competitive markets where conventional marks may be saturated.
- Legal Clarity for Future Applicants
The Sumitomo case provides a practical roadmap for registering non-conventional marks, demonstrating that scientific depiction and non-functionality are critical to overcoming statutory objections.
- Alignment with Global Practice
The development brings India closer to jurisdictions such as the United States and the European Union, where limited but notable recognition of smell marks has existed for decades.
Olfactory Marks in a Global Perspective
Internationally, olfactory trademarks have been rare but not unprecedented. In In re Clarke (1990), the USPTO granted registration for a floral fragrance applied to sewing thread. Similarly, the European Union recognized the “smell of freshly cut grass” for tennis balls in the late 1990s. India’s acceptance of the Sumitomo application places it within this progressive, albeit cautious, global trend.
Conclusion
The acceptance of the first smell-based trademark in India represents a quiet but profound shift in trademark jurisprudence. Without any legislative amendment to the Trade Marks Act or Rules, the Indian Trade Marks Registry has demonstrated a technology-aware and forward-looking approach, ensuring that legal frameworks evolve alongside innovation.
By acknowledging scientifically represented olfactory marks as capable of distinguishing goods, the Registry has reinforced the principles of fairness, adaptability, and inclusivity within trademark law. This development not only strengthens India’s intellectual property ecosystem but also paves the way for future recognition of diverse sensory brand elements. Thus, in the evolving landscape of trademarks, brand identity in India may now not only be seen or heard, but also smelled!
Court Examines Prior Claiming and Enabling Disclosure in Semaglutide Patent Dispute
Patent Act: Sections 64(1)(a), 64(1)(e), 64(1)(f), Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(l), Section 146
Case: Novo Nordisk As vs. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr On 2 December 2025
In the matter concerning Novo Nordisk A/S challenging the assertions raised by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited and another, the dispute pertained to the validity and enforceability of the species patent relating to the Semaglutide compound. The Defendants questioned the validity of the suit patent primarily on the ground that the invention was prior claimed and anticipated by an earlier genus patent, and further lacked novelty and inventive step.
Plaintiff’s Submissions:
The Plaintiff contended that the Semaglutide compound constituted a novel and inventive species distinct from the compounds disclosed in the earlier genus patent. It was argued that mere coverage of a compound within a broad Markush claim does not amount to disclosure, unless such disclosure is enabling. The Plaintiff emphasized that Semaglutide was neither exemplified nor specifically claimed in the genus patent and that a person skilled in the art could not arrive at the claimed compound without hindsight. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to submit that anticipation by prior claiming requires clear and enabling disclosure in the prior patent.
Defendants’ Submissions:
The Defendants argued that the genus patent expressly disclosed all essential features of the Semaglutide compound, including the preferred substitution at the relevant amino acid position. It was submitted that the claims, read together with the examples (specifically, example 61) and dependent claims of the genus patent, clearly enabled a person skilled in the art to arrive at the Semaglutide compound without undue experimentation. The Defendants further relied upon admissions made by the Plaintiff before the Indian Patent Office and foreign patent authorities, including declarations of commercial working, to establish that the Semaglutide compound was understood by the Plaintiff itself to be covered by the genus patent.
Court’s Analysis and Findings:
The Court reiterated that for a challenge based on prior claiming, the determinative test is whether the prior patent contains an enabling disclosure that allows a person skilled in the art to reach the later claimed invention. Applying settled principles, the Court observed that the genus patent specifically contemplated substitution with the very non-proteogenic amino acid claimed as the sole distinguishing feature of the species patent. The Court noted that the Plaintiff had admitted that the only structural difference between the compound exemplified in the genus patent and the Semaglutide compound was such a substitution.
The Court further observed that the Plaintiff’s statutory declarations under Form 27, as well as filings in foreign jurisdictions seeking patent term extensions and supplementary protection certificates, amounted to clear acknowledgments that the Semaglutide compound was derived from and covered by the genus patent. Such admissions, the Court held, could not be ignored at the interlocutory stage.
On the issue of novelty and inventive step, the Court held that once enabling disclosure was established in the genus patent, the species patent was vulnerable to challenges of anticipation by prior publication and obviousness. The Court emphasized that an inventive step must be assessed from the standpoint of a person skilled in the art, without the aid of hindsight, and found that the alleged inventive distinction did not meet the statutory threshold.
Conclusion:
The Court held that the Defendants had successfully raised a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent on the grounds of prior claiming, anticipation, and lack of inventive step. The application for an interim injunction was accordingly dismissed. While no final determination on validity was rendered at this stage, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case for protection of the suit patent. All questions on merits were left open for final adjudication in the main proceedings.
Court Declines to Entertain Intra-Court Appeal in Patent Rejection Matter
Patents Act, 1970 – Section 15, Section 117A; Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13
Letters Patent – Clause 15
Case: Italfarmaco S.p.A. vs. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
In the case of Italfarmaco S.p.A. vs. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, the Appellant challenged the maintainability objection raised against an Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appeal arose from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, who had dismissed the Appellant’s Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, thereby affirming the rejection of Patent Application No. 10810/CHENP/2012 by the Deputy Controller of Patents under Section 15.
The primary issue before the Division Bench was whether an intra-Court appeal was maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a statutory appeal under the Patents Act, in light of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Appellant’s Contentions
The Appellant contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal should be construed as an order-in-original, thereby permitting an intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It was argued that since patent disputes fall within the definition of “commercial disputes” under the Commercial Courts Act, the present appeal was maintainable before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
The Appellant further submitted that the Single Judge had examined the correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and, therefore, the nature of adjudication warranted an additional appellate remedy
Respondent’s Submissions
The Respondent opposed the maintainability of the appeal, submitting that once an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act had been entertained and decided by the High Court, no further intra-Court appeal was permissible. It was argued that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act expressly restricts appeals and overrides the Letters Patent, thereby barring any further appeal unless specifically provided under the statute.
Court’s Analysis and Findings:
The Court examined the statutory framework governing appeals under the Patents Act and the Commercial Courts Act. It observed that Section 117A of the Patents Act provides a specific appellate mechanism against orders of the Controller, which had already been invoked by the Appellant and adjudicated by the learned Single Judge.
Interpreting Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, the Court emphasized that the Act is a special enactment which expressly overrides the Letters Patent. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 categorically bars appeals except in the manner provided under the Act itself. The proviso to Section 13 further restricts appeals from orders of Commercial Divisions to those enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, which did not cover the present case.
The Court held that permitting an intra-Court appeal in such circumstances would amount to an impermissible expansion of appellate remedies, contrary to the legislative intent of streamlining and limiting appeals in commercial matters. The Bench found no statutory basis to invoke Clause 15 of the Letters Patent once a statutory appeal under the Patents Act had been exhausted.
Conclusion:
The Court upheld the objection raised by the Registry regarding maintainability and held that the Original Side Appeal was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was rejected at the threshold. The Court clarified that the Commercial Courts Act prevails over the Letters Patent and that no further appeal lies against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act.
No findings were rendered on the merits of the patent application itself, and the rejection was confined strictly to the issue of maintainability.
Streamlining Patent Adjudication: Patents (Amendment) Rules 2025 Explained
The Government of India has notified the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025, effective from 25th November 2025. These rules build on the Patents (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, that introduced Chapter XIV-A to govern the adjudication of penalties and appeals related to contraventions under sections 120, 122, and 123 of the Patents Act, 1970. This framework complements the Jan Vishwas Act 2023, which introduced adjudicating officers and appellate authorities under sections 124A and 124B.
Key Definitions (CHAPTER XIV-A-ADJUDICATION OF PENALTIES AND APPEALS):
- Adjudicating Officer: Officer authorised under section 124A of the Patents Act, 1970.
- Appellant: a person aggrieved by an order of the adjudicating officer and who prefers an appeal before the appellate authority under sub-section (1) of section 124B of the Patents Act, 1970.
- Appellate Authority: an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of section 124B of the Patents Act, 1970.
Complaint and Inquiry Process
Complaints may be filed electronically in Form 32, and adjudicating officers issue notices specifying the alleged contraventions, allowing a minimum of seven days to respond. The inquiry process permits presentation of evidence, attendance of witnesses, and can proceed in absentia if a person fails to appear, now including both the alleged contravener and other persons acquainted with relevant facts. Orders specifying contraventions and penalties are issued in writing, with copies supplied free of cost, and inquiries must be completed within three months.
Appeal Mechanism
Aggrieved parties may appeal electronically using Form 33 within 60 days. The appellate authority issues notices, considers responses, and delivers reasoned orders, ordinarily within six months. Both adjudicating officers and appellate authorities may extend timelines for sufficient cause, with or without costs, based on discretion.
Electronic Communication and Publication
All communications and notices under Chapter XIV-A are to be conducted electronically. Orders are digitally signed, communicated to all parties, and uploaded on the official website, ensuring transparency. Penalty amounts collected are credited to the Consolidated Fund of India.
Structural Updates and Form Renumbering
The draft rules correct typographical and structural issues from the 2024 rules, including proper alphabetical sequencing of rules and renumbering of forms to Form 32 (complaint) and Form 33 (appeal), resolving duplication with earlier Form 31.
Key Takeaways
The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025, aim to streamline adjudication, provide a clear appeal mechanism, and enhance transparency in patent-related enforcement. Minor structural corrections and expanded scope for proceedings in absentia strengthen the regulatory framework while certain gaps, such as coverage of other offences and qualifications for officers, remain for future consideration.
Link: https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2025/267955.pdf
SB8J and Article 8(j): Rewriting the Rules for Traditional Knowledge?
Article 8(j), Article 15 of the convention on biological diversity, Nagoya protocol
For the first time, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has established a permanent subsidiary body dedicated to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). Established under COP-16 Decision 16/5, the Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions (SB8J) replaces the former Ad Hoc Working Group and is mandated to advise the Conference of the Parties, as well as the bodies of the Nagoya and Cartagena Protocols, on matters relating to traditional knowledge (TK).
The first meeting of SB8J was held in Panama from 27 to 30 October 2025. The meeting focused on institutional arrangements and implementation priorities, including the development of SB8J’s structure and modus operandi, guidance on integrating TK into reporting under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), and a review of the Article 8(j) work programme and Voluntary Glossary. Draft guidance relating to KMGBF Targets 2 and 3, concerning ecosystem restoration and conservation areas, was discussed and remains under consideration for adoption at COP-17 in Armenia in 2026.
Article 8(j) within the CBD Framework
Article 8(j) of the CBD encourages the protection of traditional knowledge and equitable benefit sharing arising from its use. However, it does not establish binding obligations for IPLCs. In contrast, access to genetic resources under Article 15 of the CBD is subject to mandatory prior informed consent (PIC) and mutually agreed terms (MAT), reflecting the principle of state sovereignty over genetic resources.
The Nagoya Protocol seeks to operationalise Article 8(j) through Article 7, which requires that access to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources be subject to the PIC or approval and involvement of IPLCs. Implementation at the national level varies, and monitoring mechanisms under the Protocol primarily focus on genetic resources, with traditional knowledge addressed indirectly through its association with such resources.
National Implementation Models and Legal Contexts
The operation of SB8J is therefore shaped by domestic legal and constitutional frameworks. In India, the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) regime follows a state-mediated model, with PIC implemented through consultation with Biodiversity Management Committees, while final decision-making authority rests with the National Biodiversity Authority and State Biodiversity Boards. In contrast, countries such as Bhutan, Kenya, South Africa, and several Latin American states maintain community-centric frameworks that place greater emphasis on direct community authority in PIC processes.
Across jurisdictions, the outcomes of benefit-sharing arrangements have remained limited. Experiences associated with Arogyapacha in India, Camu Camu in Peru, and Hoodia involving the San communities illustrate challenges related to bargaining power, information asymmetry, and monitoring.
In parallel, developments in intellectual property law have sought to address traditional knowledge concerns. The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, adopted in 2024, introduces mandatory disclosure requirements in patent applications involving traditional knowledge. The treaty aims to enhance transparency and patent examination but does not regulate benefit sharing or grant proprietary rights over traditional knowledge.
Conclusion
Within this broader framework, SB8J functions as an institutional mechanism for advancing discussions on traditional knowledge within the CBD system, operating alongside national ABS regimes and international intellectual property instruments.
Patent Office Enhances Design Transparency: All Views Now Published in Official Journal
In a significant and welcome development effective 26 December 2025, the Patent Office has begun publishing all views of registered designs in its weekly Official Journal.
Previously, the Journal displayed only a single representative or “best” view of each registered design, which often offered a limited perspective on the full scope of the design. Under the new initiative, stakeholders can now access every published view of a registered design, enabling a much more comprehensive visual understanding of the protected subject matter.
This move substantially enhances transparency and will benefit designers, businesses, and legal professionals by supporting more accurate evaluations of design rights, helping to avoid inadvertent infringement, and enabling better-informed commercial and strategic decision-making. Overall, the initiative represents a progressive step toward strengthening the design registration framework and promoting greater certainty within the design ecosystem.
How to access all views:
Users simply need to click on the “All Views” link provided below the representative (best) view displayed against each registered design in the Journal. This allows instant access to the complete set of published views for a thorough visual examination.
The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Bill, 2025: Why India’s New Nuclear Vision Matters
India is entering a decisive phase in its clean energy journey. The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Bill, 2025 represents a bold step toward positioning nuclear energy at the heart of the country’s development, innovation, and sustainability goals.
A New Legal Framework for a Nuclear Future
Having achieved self-reliance in nuclear technology, India now recognizes nuclear energy as a key solution to its rapidly growing energy needs. This Bill aims to promote and regulate the safe, secure, and expanded use of nuclear energy and ionising radiation—not just for power generation, but across healthcare, agriculture, industry, water management, environmental protection, and advanced research.
Clean, Reliable, and Future-Ready Power
Nuclear energy offers a rare combination: clean, abundant, and round-the-clock electricity. As India moves toward Viksit Bharat, nuclear power is increasingly seen as essential for:
- Meeting rising electricity demand
- Supporting hydrogen production
- Reducing dependence on fossil fuels
- Achieving long-term climate goals
The Bill reinforces India’s commitment to expanding nuclear energy’s share in the national energy mix.
The Three-Stage Programme and Thorium Promise
A defining feature of India’s nuclear strategy is its closed fuel cycle and three-stage nuclear power programme, designed to fully utilize the country’s vast thorium reserves. The Bill acknowledges that large-scale thorium deployment will require stronger institutional support, advanced research, and next-generation technologies—areas this new framework seeks to accelerate.
Powering the AI and Deep-Tech Revolution
India’s ambitions in Artificial Intelligence, high-performance computing, quantum technologies, semiconductor manufacturing, and data-driven research demand stable, reliable, and massive power supply. Nuclear energy is uniquely suited to meet these requirements, enabling innovation without compromising sustainability.
Beyond power, nuclear science also supports future-ready applications such as:
- Advanced materials research
- Precision manufacturing
- Space technologies
- Industrial automation
Expanding Beyond Power: Nuclear for Everyday Life
The Bill emphasizes that nuclear science is not limited to reactors. Its applications span:
- Cancer diagnosis and treatment
- Food preservation and safety
- Water purification
- Agricultural productivity
- Environmental monitoring
These non-power uses are critical for inclusive growth and achieving India’s sustainable development goals.
Public–Private Collaboration and Global Integration
A major shift under the proposed framework is the active involvement of both public and private sectors. By enabling private participation, the Bill seeks to:
- Boost domestic manufacturing
- Encourage innovation and R&D
- Strengthen finance, insurance, and skill development
- Integrate India into the global nuclear ecosystem
Safety First, Always
India’s strong track record in nuclear and radiation safety remains central. The Bill calls for a robust, modern regulatory framework that keeps pace with expanding nuclear capacity, AI-enabled nuclear systems, and emerging radiation technologies—ensuring safety, security, and public trust at every step.
In Conclusion
The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Bill, 2025 is more than an energy policy—it is a strategic blueprint for India’s technological, environmental, and economic future. By combining clean energy, deep-tech innovation, private participation, and uncompromising safety standards, the Bill aims to make nuclear energy a cornerstone of India’s transformation in the decades ahead.
