Hasbro's Trademark for the Smell of Play-Doh (2018)

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.

Moto g60 128 GB - 6 GB, March 2022.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Probably, but couldn't there exist a situation where another set of chemicals produced a similar sensation?

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.

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?

>> 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".

> 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.

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.