It is correct that, by trademarking fresh-cut-grassy-smelling balls, they bar other manufacturers from making that product. It would be more appropriate to identify the smell as the trademark (a device used to identify your product to consumers), and not put a mark on the ball. This would be a true trademark (and not a patent--which is the current effect) because it would allow others to make balls with the same smell, but require them to label them in another way.
I like the idea of using smell as a trademark, but if they disallow others selling that product, what they have is a patent, not a trademark.
Slashdot Mirror
It is correct that, by trademarking fresh-cut-grassy-smelling balls, they bar other manufacturers from making that product. It would be more appropriate to identify the smell as the trademark (a device used to identify your product to consumers), and not put a mark on the ball. This would be a true trademark (and not a patent--which is the current effect) because it would allow others to make balls with the same smell, but require them to label them in another way.
I like the idea of using smell as a trademark, but if they disallow others selling that product, what they have is a patent, not a trademark.