Once I bought a Motorola smartphone. When I received it, there was a strong smell, so I asked it to be returned because someone must have droped some perfum during the delivery.
The new one come with the same strong smell. Found out that the Motorola was trying to create some "scent signature" to their products. Returned it again and never look back.
There's a department center in Hong Kong with a weird overly sweet smell. I kept wondering why it'd smell like this the first time I visited, until I learned that the CEO of the group decided to create a scent signature for his mall. It was supposed to smell slightly like plasticine (play doh smell) to remind people of their childhood. I personally have avoided that mall ever since, I really cannot stand the smell at all.
There's a shopping centre in Poland where I have seen cleaners just pouring a bottle of perfume into the mop buckets they use to clean the floor, presumably also to give it a "scent", the problem is that they must be using some cheapest nastiest stuff because the entire place smells like the cheapest "Adidos" branded cologne.
Ironlak spraypaint is like this too. The first day I hated it but it really grew on me, and despite having not held a can of Ironlak in a decade, I can still smell it.
Madonna's Like a Prayer album was covered in patchouli oil, it was supposed to call to mind the church. I'm not opposed to the idea of scented products/branding but it always seems too strong.
What model and year? I picked up a Moto g play (2021) at Target and wasn't aware of this issue, because it would've been a deal breaker for me as well. I find all artificial fragrances revolting and off-putting.
To me, it's just overwhelmingly distracting to be surrounded by a flurry of scents.
Could be artificial, could be natural.
The laundry soap aisle at the grocery store is an awful time for me, and so is visiting a florist or a funeral for a popular person.
For years, I'd get angry every time I went grocery shopping with my family. I'd enter the store in a good mood, and by the time I left I was simply very pissed off.
I never could figure out why, until: I realized that things were fine until I spent any time in an aisle that was full of perfumed products.
So I stopped doing that.
Lots of things got a lot easier for me (and everyone around me) after that point.
If someone is curious about the description of the Play-Doh scent.
> A unique scent formed through the combination of a sweet, slightly musky, vanilla-like fragrance, with slight overtones of cherry, and the natural smell of a salted, wheat-based dough.
Uh, OP already linked to a very concise trademark document. This info is prominently above-the-fold. If anyone is actually curious, I would hope they actually clicked the link and didn't come to the comments section first...
For me nothing beats the smell of Pokemon cards freshly out of a booster pack. I can recall that smell at a whim even though I haven't opened any packs in years.
This isn't a valid trademark. If it's ever challenged, it's doomed. The fragrance industry has already been down this road: you cannot copyright/trademark/patent a smell, you can only protect the composition of your formula. USPTO has an entire classification system that deals with perfume patents, so I have no idea how this trademark got approved.
If someone duplicates your fragrance without duplicating your formula, they are free to do so, even for profit (See: The "Replica" brand of fragrances).
If they want to protect this smell as a form of IP, they need to patent their formula, not trademark a description of the scent. Even then, so long as competitors don't copy the formula, they are free to copy the smell.
Are you talking about the Replica line by Maison Margiela, because those are obviously not trying to be bootlegs, they replicate smells from nature. However you're right, that fragrances are one of the most ripped off original works in existence, with machines to even analyze the composition in creating duplicates. Those master perfumers that make unique works of art through their studies and talents have it worse than Nike shoes.
That might be the case. I'm not a lawyer, but I do try to know as much as I can about IP law. Regardless, I would expect that Hasbro doesn't actually have the ability to protect this fragrance short of a SLAPP suite.
I thought fragrances in perfumes couldn't be trademarked because they were functional. But you could trademark fragrances as a nonfunctional component of a product (e.g. Play-doh).
I would argue that for something to be trademarked it must somehow be recorded. A vague description is not enough. For a color such as Ferrari Red, we have specific values. For a sound such the windows noises, we have exact recording. If I were a judge, I would need more than "it smells like vanilla" before enforcing a trademark against someone with an allegedly similarly-smelling product. At least run the scent through a mass spectrometer or something.
Are we going to have vineyards suing each other because X wine smells too similar to Y?
Aside from the separate conversation about the validity of a scent trademark --- trademarks have very different purposes for existing than a copyright or a patent. The point of a trademark is to protect consumers from being confused in the marketplace. You can violate trademark without copying a mark exactly. You can also copy a mark exactly and be completely justified in your usage. Extreme precision in defining the mark isn't totally necessary.
You say Ferrari Red is described in terms of ‘specific values’, but ultimately it’s still just a description. Who defines what the values mean?
I actually don’t know. Does each set of values (in whatever colour system you’re talking about) correspond to a list of quantities of specific physical dyes?
It's difficult, that's why Pantone charges thousands of dollars. You know those chameleon car paints that change color based on sunlight or angle? Turns out everything is like that somewhat. You can have two parts match perfectly under a fluorescent light and then look like totally different colors under sunlight. I had to come up with a color scheme for a factory where all the colors matched, but all the different machines used powder coat, wet paint, polyurethane dip, all sorts of things. In the end, how we had to do it was buy a very expensive Pantone physical set of chips and light boxes, which costs thousands of dollars each and physically give these to all of the suppliers to match. We had to include this light box contraption with various bulbs and angles and a camera. You could define the spec by Pantone's written list, but you can't ever meet the spec without Pantone shipping you this science fair project.
I went to dig into this a bit (since the obvious way to find out what is trademarked is to read the filing) but the euro trademark viewer fails to load for me in the US; a bit more digging suggests that not only is it not trademarked, but for a bunch of time they were driving Marlboro Red cars instead anyway, as part of a branding deal.
So, anyone have leads on any actual evidence here?
> Does each set of values (in whatever colour system you’re talking about) correspond to a list of quantities of specific physical dyes?
Yes. Pantone colors (an industry standard) are defined as a ratio of Pantone colorants. Those colorants then have specific formulations depending on the type of paint they go in. No matter what though, they're formulated such that the colors reproduce exactly every time (insofar as chemistry and physics allows). This is the same general process that most (all) standards use AFAIK.
But at the crux of it, we can measure color very precisely. A specific color correlates to a specific distribution of light wavelengths. Spectrometers are not particularly expensive these days.
Believe me, there has been a ton of effort put into this question. Color accuracy is a whole industry that most people have never heard of.
Pantone is a way to standardize on colors. But that level of precision isn't really necessary for a trademark case. The courts care about whether or not a consumer is confused by the color, and that level of specificity is way more coarse than the details Pantone is concerned about. If you rip off Coke and change the color to the next closest Pantone color, it will make zero difference in your court case.
>> correspond to a list of quantities of specific physical dyes?
No. A trademark is not a recipe. What matters is the actual look. As for values, "Ferrari Red" is has defined RGB values according to colorhexa (RGB: (239, 26, 45), CMYK: (0, 89, 81, 6).0) and I am sure is outlined in any contract involving Ferrari sponsorship. No doubt Coke also has very specific values for its version of "red".
Let me guess. The start the machine, say the magic incantation "Zoom. Enhance." and the answer pops up in an animated sequence on a 72-inch high-def television screen after showing a brief animation of some kind of chemical process complete with flashing outlines and sound effects.
CSI is notorious for inventing lots of forensic tools that never have and never will exist. In fact, their portrayal of forensic science has warped public perception enough that it has led to the corruption of actual forensic science, because people find it extremely easy to believe that all of these magical investigative tools actually exist.
A show about actual investigative science would not be exciting to watch though, so they throw shit in like "freeze and enhance" because people love fantasy science. They just don't know enough to know the difference between what's real and what's not.
In the real world, we do have something called an "Electronic Nose", which is essentially what you are describing here. But, if you're actually trying to document the composition of a fragrance, you wouldn't work backwards by analyzing the smell, you would just document the formula you used to create the fragrance.
IP works differently than code, and it is often subjective. See: copyright infringement.
> Are we going to have vineyards suing each other because X wine smells too similar to Y?
No, because the smell of (most) wines is not trademarkable, being a function of the product. Trademarking scents is difficult[1].
Attempts to quantify scent trademarks / music copyrights are doomed to fail. Partly because every person experiences these sensory inputs differently. Two smells could be very different chemically yet indistinguishable to real people.
Once I bought a Motorola smartphone. When I received it, there was a strong smell, so I asked it to be returned because someone must have droped some perfum during the delivery.
The new one come with the same strong smell. Found out that the Motorola was trying to create some "scent signature" to their products. Returned it again and never look back.
There's a department center in Hong Kong with a weird overly sweet smell. I kept wondering why it'd smell like this the first time I visited, until I learned that the CEO of the group decided to create a scent signature for his mall. It was supposed to smell slightly like plasticine (play doh smell) to remind people of their childhood. I personally have avoided that mall ever since, I really cannot stand the smell at all.
There's a shopping centre in Poland where I have seen cleaners just pouring a bottle of perfume into the mop buckets they use to clean the floor, presumably also to give it a "scent", the problem is that they must be using some cheapest nastiest stuff because the entire place smells like the cheapest "Adidos" branded cologne.
Storm brand bowling balls are slightly scented. Mine used to smell like orange mint when it was new.
Ironlak spraypaint is like this too. The first day I hated it but it really grew on me, and despite having not held a can of Ironlak in a decade, I can still smell it.
Madonna's Like a Prayer album was covered in patchouli oil, it was supposed to call to mind the church. I'm not opposed to the idea of scented products/branding but it always seems too strong.
What model and year? I picked up a Moto g play (2021) at Target and wasn't aware of this issue, because it would've been a deal breaker for me as well. I find all artificial fragrances revolting and off-putting.
To me, it's just overwhelmingly distracting to be surrounded by a flurry of scents.
Could be artificial, could be natural.
The laundry soap aisle at the grocery store is an awful time for me, and so is visiting a florist or a funeral for a popular person.
For years, I'd get angry every time I went grocery shopping with my family. I'd enter the store in a good mood, and by the time I left I was simply very pissed off.
I never could figure out why, until: I realized that things were fine until I spent any time in an aisle that was full of perfumed products.
So I stopped doing that.
Lots of things got a lot easier for me (and everyone around me) after that point.
Moto g60 128 GB - 6 GB, March 2022.
If someone is curious about the description of the Play-Doh scent.
> A unique scent formed through the combination of a sweet, slightly musky, vanilla-like fragrance, with slight overtones of cherry, and the natural smell of a salted, wheat-based dough.
Uh, OP already linked to a very concise trademark document. This info is prominently above-the-fold. If anyone is actually curious, I would hope they actually clicked the link and didn't come to the comments section first...
Reading only the comments without looking at the linked content — what monster would do such a thing?
Or you could just mind your business and move on.
Apple computers' boxes in the 80s had a nice apple smell. Did they use a commercial product or was it developed by them?
The scent lasted for at least 10 years as I reopened the boxes in the 90s to store my Apple ][c and replace it with the appliance-smelling IBM PC.
Airpods with rubber ear tips smell like blueberries when new. It has been debated on whether or not this is intentional or just offgassing.
(my guess is offgassing because if it were intentional Apple would be way more consistent)
My favorite 303 tire balm smells like this. I'm betting it's probably a similar silicone based chemical that's used in the ear tips.
Ah, new {Apple Device} smell...
I haven't been around Play-Doh in 40 years and just reading that I can smell it perfectly.
Yeah the smell is very distinctive. I think I had it 30 years ago in my hands and at times I remember
Alas, if only it tasted as good as it smells.
That's just your opinion, man.
For anyone curious: it tastes like a bowl of salt.
Source: I was an adventurous 5 year old.
For me nothing beats the smell of Pokemon cards freshly out of a booster pack. I can recall that smell at a whim even though I haven't opened any packs in years.
this exactly. I started buying packs again recently for fun and immediately was transported back 20 years
2018, that makes sense. they got a chemist to make an extract / perfume of it around then i guess.
I believe I've run into it used as a flavoring in the blue ice cream.
Hasbro Trademarks a Favorite Smell from Childhood: The PLAY-DOH Scent, May 18, 2018
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180518005326/en
This isn't a valid trademark. If it's ever challenged, it's doomed. The fragrance industry has already been down this road: you cannot copyright/trademark/patent a smell, you can only protect the composition of your formula. USPTO has an entire classification system that deals with perfume patents, so I have no idea how this trademark got approved.
If someone duplicates your fragrance without duplicating your formula, they are free to do so, even for profit (See: The "Replica" brand of fragrances).
If they want to protect this smell as a form of IP, they need to patent their formula, not trademark a description of the scent. Even then, so long as competitors don't copy the formula, they are free to copy the smell.
Are you talking about the Replica line by Maison Margiela, because those are obviously not trying to be bootlegs, they replicate smells from nature. However you're right, that fragrances are one of the most ripped off original works in existence, with machines to even analyze the composition in creating duplicates. Those master perfumers that make unique works of art through their studies and talents have it worse than Nike shoes.
I was under the impression that trademarks were just granted and they are verified once they are challenged.
That might be the case. I'm not a lawyer, but I do try to know as much as I can about IP law. Regardless, I would expect that Hasbro doesn't actually have the ability to protect this fragrance short of a SLAPP suite.
I thought fragrances in perfumes couldn't be trademarked because they were functional. But you could trademark fragrances as a nonfunctional component of a product (e.g. Play-doh).
I would argue that for something to be trademarked it must somehow be recorded. A vague description is not enough. For a color such as Ferrari Red, we have specific values. For a sound such the windows noises, we have exact recording. If I were a judge, I would need more than "it smells like vanilla" before enforcing a trademark against someone with an allegedly similarly-smelling product. At least run the scent through a mass spectrometer or something.
Are we going to have vineyards suing each other because X wine smells too similar to Y?
Aside from the separate conversation about the validity of a scent trademark --- trademarks have very different purposes for existing than a copyright or a patent. The point of a trademark is to protect consumers from being confused in the marketplace. You can violate trademark without copying a mark exactly. You can also copy a mark exactly and be completely justified in your usage. Extreme precision in defining the mark isn't totally necessary.
You say Ferrari Red is described in terms of ‘specific values’, but ultimately it’s still just a description. Who defines what the values mean?
I actually don’t know. Does each set of values (in whatever colour system you’re talking about) correspond to a list of quantities of specific physical dyes?
It's difficult, that's why Pantone charges thousands of dollars. You know those chameleon car paints that change color based on sunlight or angle? Turns out everything is like that somewhat. You can have two parts match perfectly under a fluorescent light and then look like totally different colors under sunlight. I had to come up with a color scheme for a factory where all the colors matched, but all the different machines used powder coat, wet paint, polyurethane dip, all sorts of things. In the end, how we had to do it was buy a very expensive Pantone physical set of chips and light boxes, which costs thousands of dollars each and physically give these to all of the suppliers to match. We had to include this light box contraption with various bulbs and angles and a camera. You could define the spec by Pantone's written list, but you can't ever meet the spec without Pantone shipping you this science fair project.
I guess that’s why even Apple seem to struggle to make ‘Space Grey’ a consistent colour.
I went to dig into this a bit (since the obvious way to find out what is trademarked is to read the filing) but the euro trademark viewer fails to load for me in the US; a bit more digging suggests that not only is it not trademarked, but for a bunch of time they were driving Marlboro Red cars instead anyway, as part of a branding deal.
So, anyone have leads on any actual evidence here?
> Does each set of values (in whatever colour system you’re talking about) correspond to a list of quantities of specific physical dyes?
Yes. Pantone colors (an industry standard) are defined as a ratio of Pantone colorants. Those colorants then have specific formulations depending on the type of paint they go in. No matter what though, they're formulated such that the colors reproduce exactly every time (insofar as chemistry and physics allows). This is the same general process that most (all) standards use AFAIK.
But at the crux of it, we can measure color very precisely. A specific color correlates to a specific distribution of light wavelengths. Spectrometers are not particularly expensive these days.
Believe me, there has been a ton of effort put into this question. Color accuracy is a whole industry that most people have never heard of.
Pantone is a way to standardize on colors. But that level of precision isn't really necessary for a trademark case. The courts care about whether or not a consumer is confused by the color, and that level of specificity is way more coarse than the details Pantone is concerned about. If you rip off Coke and change the color to the next closest Pantone color, it will make zero difference in your court case.
>> correspond to a list of quantities of specific physical dyes?
No. A trademark is not a recipe. What matters is the actual look. As for values, "Ferrari Red" is has defined RGB values according to colorhexa (RGB: (239, 26, 45), CMYK: (0, 89, 81, 6).0) and I am sure is outlined in any contract involving Ferrari sponsorship. No doubt Coke also has very specific values for its version of "red".
But if it’s specified in terms of CMYK, that is a list of quantities of specific dyes, isn’t it?
CMYK is a representation ratios of unspecific dyes, on an unknown medium.
Ah — true. I thought the dyes used for each colour would be fairly standard, though.
They're close, if we're just talking about printer ink. But if you're coloring some other item, you might be using entirely different materials.
Dyes are not like light. Mix any three, regardless of ratio, and you basically always get brown. That's why paint stores carry so many colors.
Can't smells be recorded by chemical composition?
20+ years ago, CSI (U.S. TV Show) had an episode where they used a device to identify fragrances; seemed plausible to me.
Probably, but couldn't there exist a situation where another set of chemicals produced a similar sensation?
There's a starup working on producng a wide variety of odors from a more limited number of ingredients.
Using AI, "naturally".
Let me guess. The start the machine, say the magic incantation "Zoom. Enhance." and the answer pops up in an animated sequence on a 72-inch high-def television screen after showing a brief animation of some kind of chemical process complete with flashing outlines and sound effects.
CSI is notorious for inventing lots of forensic tools that never have and never will exist. In fact, their portrayal of forensic science has warped public perception enough that it has led to the corruption of actual forensic science, because people find it extremely easy to believe that all of these magical investigative tools actually exist.
A show about actual investigative science would not be exciting to watch though, so they throw shit in like "freeze and enhance" because people love fantasy science. They just don't know enough to know the difference between what's real and what's not.
In the real world, we do have something called an "Electronic Nose", which is essentially what you are describing here. But, if you're actually trying to document the composition of a fragrance, you wouldn't work backwards by analyzing the smell, you would just document the formula you used to create the fragrance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_nose
IP works differently than code, and it is often subjective. See: copyright infringement.
> Are we going to have vineyards suing each other because X wine smells too similar to Y?
No, because the smell of (most) wines is not trademarkable, being a function of the product. Trademarking scents is difficult[1].
Attempts to quantify scent trademarks / music copyrights are doomed to fail. Partly because every person experiences these sensory inputs differently. Two smells could be very different chemically yet indistinguishable to real people.
1. https://www.orlaw.com/intellectual-property/yes-can-trademar...