The Milano Beauty Week, which has just come to an end, has once again placed the spotlight on a sector where research, innovation, technical expertise, creativity and entrepreneurial skills come together, giving rise to products in which tangible and intangible value are increasingly closely interconnected. From 16 to 20 September, Milan hosted a new edition of the event promoted by Cosmetica Italia, together with Cosmoprof and Esxence, confirming its position as one of the key events for the cosmetics, perfumery and beauty industry. In this context, fragrance represents one of the most interesting examples of this intersection between matter and creativity: a composition created through raw materials, formulas, techniques and processes, yet at the same time capable of expressing an identity, evoking emotions, building a relationship with the public and making a significant contribution to brand recognition. This is also why, from an Intellectual Property perspective, fragrance raises particularly interesting questions. A perfume may be associated with a trademark, a bottle, packaging, a design project, an advertising campaign or a creative work. Formulae, production processes, technical and commercial information may, on the other hand, acquire value as know-how or confidential information. But what happens when the creation itself is a fragrance? The question becomes even more interesting when we consider that creativity and legal protectability do not always coincide and that, in the case of perfume, precisely the most distinctive element – the olfactory element – still presents particular challenges from a legal protection perspective. To explore these issues, I spoke with Simone Lo Bue, Perfumer and fragrance creative, whose professional career has developed through experience with leading international maisons and in artistic perfumery. With Simone, we decided to start from his practical experience as a “nose” to discuss creativity, brand identity, the expertise of the creator and Intellectual Property. A conversation with Simone Lo Bue 1. Simone, how does a fragrance come into being? When does an idea turn into a perfume? “For me, a fragrance begins, first and foremost, with an image. When I receive a brief from a Maison, something starts moving inside me: emotions, memories, intuitions, images. It is as if the words of the brief slowly begin to transform into a scene, an atmosphere, into something that does not yet exist but that I can already almost perceive. In my mind, the raw materials come to life. They seek each other out, brush against one another, come into conflict, merge. Each one carries its own personality, its own light, its own temperature. And little by little, from this dialogue, a scent begins to appear. It is a process very similar to cinema or theatre: even before seeing the scene, you imagine it. You can almost feel the light, perceive the air, sense the presence of the characters. A fragrance is born when I manage to see that scene through the sense of smell. At that moment, I have the feeling that the words of the brief have finally become real. When, instead, I have to interpret the identity of a Maison, the process becomes even more personal. I believe that a perfumer must, in some way, know how to dress a brand. He must enter into it, understand its language, sensitivity and history, but also what it has not yet said. It is like an actor meeting a character: knowing the character’s story is not enough. He must wear its clothes, breathe its atmosphere, understand its silences, until he can bring it to life through himself. I try to do the same with a Maison. I enter its universe and try to inhabit it. Then I try to translate it through raw materials, allowing them to tell its identity. In the end, that is what a fragrance is: an image that cannot be seen, a story that cannot be read, but that can be perceived.” 2. Simone, you spoke about the identity of the Maison. How important is what we might call an “olfactory signature” in the creation of a perfume? And how is the relationship between fragrance and brand identity built? “Becoming the creator of the olfactory signature of the Maison I have worked for is always something special. I believe that a perfumer can create an olfactory signature when he manages to completely embody its identity. When he no longer merely interprets the brand, but feels it and lives it, to the point of recognising within it something of himself: characteristics, sensitivities, experiences, even aspects of his own personal history that may meet and reflect the values of the Maison. Becoming the olfactory signature of a brand means, in some way, being that brand. And perhaps it is one of the greatest achievements for a perfumer: becoming the olfactory key through which a Maison is interpreted, managing to represent it through an invisible yet immensely powerful language, translating its values, personality and vision. And this becomes even more fascinating when the brand originates in a world other than perfumery, such as fashion. Being able to transfer into the sense of smell what a creative has expressed through a collection, through a fabric, a silhouette, a colour, a material… is something extraordinary. Because scent is perhaps the most powerful means we have of transforming an image into an emotion. Ultimately, I believe that a brand is precisely this: the emotion that a creative succeeds in conveying. A strong, recognisable, memorable emotion. And perfume can become its seal. It can be what closes that story, but also what makes it unforgettable. The means through which that identity remains in the memory, even when everything else has disappeared. And when this result is achieved, the satisfaction for a perfumer is enormous.” 3. Simone, what makes a perfume iconic and unforgettable? Is there an element that allows a fragrance to remain in the memory and become immediately recognisable? “I believe it happens when the emotion it conveys manages to reach the most intimate part of the person wearing it or encountering it. When it is not merely pleasant, but succeeds in touching something that was already inside us. And perhaps this is one of the most difficult pursuits in the perfumer’s profession: searching for those emotional gateways, those invisible points through which raw materials and accords can enter a person’s memory and imagination. And I believe that a fragrance becomes truly recognisable when it also manages to distance itself from everything around it, from what already exists on the market. Not necessarily by breaking conventions. Indeed, personally, I do not believe it is necessary to overturn conventions: it is much more interesting to revisit them. To take something we know, something that belongs to the collective olfactory memory, and look at it from another perspective. To shift it, distort it, contaminate it, until it becomes unconventional. It is precisely in this space, between what we recognise and what we have not yet smelled, that something truly personal is born, in my view. Because innovation in perfumery does not always mean creating something that no one has ever smelled before. Sometimes it means taking something everyone knows and managing to make it smell new for the first time.” 4. Simone, how is the relationship between the perfumer and the brand built? How important is the dialogue between the creator and the Maison in shaping the final result? “As far as the relationship between a perfumer and a brand is concerned, for me it is first and foremost a creative collaboration. I strongly believe in the union of souls, in the meeting of feelings and sensitivities. Creation, as I experience it, is a four-handed process: it is neither the perfumer simply interpreting an idea from the brand, nor the brand merely receiving what the perfumer has created. It is a dialogue. It is the meeting of two visions which, step by step, come closer until they become one. What I love is seeing a work of art take shape through this process, being meticulously constructed and detailed by both sides. Every choice, every raw material, every nuance becomes part of a fusion of creative minds, souls and feelings. It is as if the brand brought its vision of the world and the perfumer his olfactory grammar, and together they found a new language with which to tell that story. Also from the perspective of relationships and creative recognition, fortunately, I have experienced very healthy relationships with the Maisons I have worked with. The brand often celebrates the perfumer’s creativity, his vision and the way in which he managed to transform into a perfume the image that the Maison had entrusted to him. And I believe this is one of the most beautiful aspects of our profession: when, at the end of a creative process, both parties are able to recognise themselves in the work. The brand sees itself in the fragrance, while at the same time recognising the hand, sensitivity and soul of the perfumer. That is where, in my view, a collaboration truly becomes creative: when there is no longer a clear distinction between who imagined and who created, but only the work remains, as the expression of two sensibilities that have met.” 5. Simone, in the world of perfumery, there is often talk of inspiration, references and olfactory families and, conversely, of imitation. Where does the boundary between inspiration and copying lie? “The question of the boundary between inspiration and imitation is very interesting, because it is a subtle, almost imperceptible boundary. Personally, I have always been deeply inspired by the great classics of the history of perfumery. But what inspires me is not necessarily their olfactory structure: it is above all the emotion they have left inside me, the image they have created in my memory. A great perfume, when it enters our memory, almost ceases to be merely a perfume. It becomes an image, a memory, a sensation. And when I return to that image, I try to represent the same emotion through my own interpretative key, using the raw materials I love, my own language and my sensitivity. I believe that drawing inspiration is absolutely legitimate for a perfumer. The history of perfumery is also made up of invisible dialogues between generations, of ideas that are collected, transformed and interpreted anew. The boundary with imitation, however, is very blurred. And I believe that it is precisely the perfumer’s creativity that defines it. Copying means reproducing. Drawing inspiration, on the other hand, means being able to grasp the soul of a creation and take it somewhere else. It means taking that feeling that someone has already expressed and experiencing it through one’s own sensitivity, reworking it, making it more intimate, more personal, until it can be returned in a new form. For me, true inspiration is born precisely when the original ceases to be an endpoint and becomes a starting point. I want to recreate what that perfume made me feel, but through my own universe. And if, in the end, the emotion that comes across is different from the original, then I believe that something truly creative has happened: not a copy, but a new way of telling an emotion that, in some way, belongs to the memory of perfumery.” Beyond the fragrance. Legal analysis. The conversation with Simone Lo Bue provides an opportunity for several reflections. The first concerns the complexity of the legal protection of a creation. When we talk about perfume, we are not dealing with a single intangible asset, but with a plurality of elements that may contribute to the construction of the product’s value. The name of the fragrance may be protected through trademark law; the bottle and packaging may raise issues of protection through design rights and three-dimensional trademarks, where the relevant requirements are met, and also through copyright; campaigns, images, texts and other creative content may be protected under the respective legal regimes. For bottles and packaging, the current reference at EU level is Regulation (EU) 2026/715 on European Union designs, which entered into force on 1 July 2026 and replaced Regulation 6/2002. The legislation expressly considers packaging as a “product” for protection purposes and grants protection to designs where, among other requirements, novelty and individual character are present. The fragrance itself, however, raises a different issue. The creativity of the result does not automatically give rise to an exclusive right. It is necessary, on a case-by-case basis, to identify the element that meets the requirements for protection, its function and the legal instrument that can effectively be used. And this is precisely where the dialogue between creativity and Intellectual Property becomes particularly interesting. The concept of an “olfactory signature” also introduces one of the most fascinating, but also most complex, issues in Intellectual Property protection applied to perfumery: the olfactory trademark. EU law generally recognises a broad concept of a sign capable of constituting a trademark. Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark covers various categories of signs, provided that they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking and can be represented on the Register in such a way as to enable the authorities and the public to determine clearly and precisely the subject matter of the protection. For smells, therefore, the issue does not simply lie in the abstract possibility of conceiving an olfactory sign as an indicator of commercial origin, but in the possibility of representing it legally in accordance with the applicable requirements. The issue was addressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the well-known Sieckmann, C-273/00, judgment of 12 December 2002, in which the Court held that, given the state of technology available at the time, a chemical formula, a verbal description, the deposit of a sample of the smell or any combination of these could not satisfy the applicable representation requirements. The issue has not been overcome by the subsequent development of EU trade mark law. Current EUIPO guidance confirms that, given the current state of technology, smells cannot be represented in a manner complying with the requirements for registration as an EU trade mark. In particular, neither a chemical formula nor a verbal description of the smell is considered sufficient, while the deposit of samples is not an accepted means of representation under the applicable framework. This does not, of course, mean that the olfactory identity of a brand has no legal or commercial value. Rather, it means that, at least under the current European framework, protection cannot simply be constructed around an exclusive right over the smell as such. The protection strategy must therefore also focus on the other elements through which that identity is built and communicated: the name, trademark, packaging, bottle, design, communication, creative content and, above all, the know-how developed throughout the creative process. In other words, rather than seeking to “own” a smell, it becomes essential to protect the identity that the smell contributes to building through a coordinated plurality of Intellectual Property tools. The concept of “iconicity” also deserves an important distinction from a legal perspective. A product may be highly recognisable on the market without every element of it thereby being the subject of an exclusive right. In perfumery, recognisability may derive from the combination of numerous factors: the name, packaging, bottle shape, communication, product history, brand reputation and, naturally, the fragrance. The issue becomes particularly delicate when attempting to identify within the sensory experience of perfume a creative work that may be independently protected. European case law has addressed a similar issue, although not in relation to fragrances, in Levola Hengelo, C-310/17, judgment of 13 November 2018, concerning the possibility of protecting the taste of a food product through copyright. The Court stressed the need for the subject matter of copyright protection to be identified with sufficient precision and objectivity. The case concerned taste, not fragrance, and therefore cannot be used to automatically establish that a fragrance cannot be protected by copyright. It may nevertheless be referred to as an expression of a broader principle: copyright protection requires the subject matter over which exclusivity is claimed to be identifiable according to sufficiently clear and verifiable criteria. For this reason too, in the field of perfumery it is essential to distinguish what constitutes an idea, a sensation or a creative language from what can concretely be regarded as an object of legal protection. The task is therefore not to confer an exclusive right over the abstract idea of an “iconic” perfume, but to identify the specific elements that generate value and assess, for each of them, what protection is concretely available. Moreover, describing a collaboration as a “four-handed” creation aptly captures the creative dimension of the relationship, but does not automatically resolve the issue of ownership and use of the results of that collaboration. This is precisely where the contract plays a central role. When a perfume is created through a collaboration between a brand and a creator, it is advisable to clearly regulate, among other things, the scope of the assignment, the use of the results, exploitation rights, whether and how the creator’s name may be used in communications, the availability and use of materials, confidentiality obligations and the terms governing any subsequent development of the creation. Alongside the creative dimension, there is also that of know-how. In the perfumery sector, information relating to formulae, processes, development methods, combinations of raw materials, working procedures, selection criteria, commercial information and other non-public data may have significant economic value. The Italian legal framework is set out, in particular, in Articles 98 and 99 of the Italian Industrial Property Code, which protect business information and technical-industrial experience, including commercial information, where such information is secret, has economic value because it is secret and is subject to measures reasonably adequate to keep it secret. The national framework operates within the broader context of Directive (EU) 2016/943, concerning the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. This point is also important in practical terms: confidentiality cannot be entrusted exclusively to a contractual clause. The protection of trade secrets requires the adoption of concrete measures consistent with the nature of the information to be protected: access restrictions, document management, internal procedures, confidentiality agreements and controls over the circulation of information. In a sector where a formula may represent the outcome of a long process of research and experimentation, know-how management may therefore constitute an essential component of an Intellectual Property strategy. Finally, the boundary between inspiration and imitation is one of the most complex issues when discussing the protection of creativity. In the perfumery sector, the difficulty is heightened by the fact that many fragrances may belong to the same olfactory family, use common raw materials or share certain characteristics perceptible to consumers. Mere conceptual or sensory proximity is not, in itself, sufficient to establish an infringement of an Intellectual Property right. It is first necessary to identify which element is alleged to have been reproduced and which specific right protects its use. The issue may therefore take different forms: it may concern a distinctive sign, the design of packaging or a bottle, creative content, confidential information or, where the relevant requirements are met, conduct falling within the rules on unfair competition. Here too, the starting point must be concrete: not the abstract idea of “similarity”, but the identification of the protected element, the conduct at issue and the actual overlap between the two. Intellectual Property must strike a balance between protecting creative investment and preserving the necessary freedom to develop and reinterpret ideas that characterises every creative process. And it is precisely this balance that makes the relationship between perfumery and law particularly interesting. Concluding remarks The beauty industry demonstrates particularly clearly how the value of a product does not necessarily coincide with what is immediately perceptible. Behind a fragrance there may coexist research, technical expertise, creativity, identity, investment, reputation and experience. From an Intellectual Property perspective, this means that protection cannot necessarily be conceived around a single right, but must begin by identifying the different assets that contribute to the creation of value. The name and trademark; the bottle and packaging; design; creative works and communication; know-how and confidential information; contractual relationships with creators and partners; the reputation built over time. And, naturally, also that olfactory dimension which may represent an essential part of the product’s identity, while still presenting significant limitations, within the European system, as to its ability to be directly translated into an exclusive right over an olfactory sign. The real challenge in the beauty sector is therefore to understand where value lies, who contributes to creating it, how it is used and which legal tools can effectively be employed to protect it. Because a perfume is something extremely concrete: it is born from raw materials, formulas, techniques and expertise. But what makes it part of an identity is often invisible. And perhaps this is the most fascinating feature of beauty: not only what we see, but also what we recognise, remember and, through experience, learn to consider unique. S.T.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
