Smell rights
ownership of a scent
Smell rights are claims of ownership to particular smells. These rights can include copyright or non-conventional trademark.
Protection and trends
In France, the scent of a perfume is not eligible for copyright.
In 2006, a Dutch court ruled that a perfume could have a copyright. The case was a claim of French cosmetics company, Lancôme, on the property of the scent of its perfume Trésor against the version of such fragance done by the Dutch firm Kecofa. The Dutch High court granted the protection given that scent as long as it is perceptible and original.
Legal commentators have described possible systems for trademarking scents. WIPO has collected information on the use of registration of the such called "Olfactory marks" as a tendency among national offices of trademark.
In the United States, Hasbro has a trademark for the smell of Play-Doh.
In November 2025, India approved its first registration of a smell mark for a scent described as “Floral fragrance / smell reminiscent of roses as applied to tires”.
The public source identifies “Smell rights” as ownership of a scent. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Smell, rights and ownership.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Smell rights”, the useful work is to connect “ownership of a scent” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 8, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q63339733. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2006 and 2025.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Smell rights”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Smell rights primary sources, Smell rights archive and Smell research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Smell rights”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Smell rights” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.