Digits with Distinction: Delhi High Court Upholds Registrability of Arbitrary Numerical Marks

Introduction

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Vineet Kapur v. Registrar of Trade Marks^[1] is a landmark ruling concerning the registrability of numerical trademarks under Indian law. It addresses a long-debated issue in trademark jurisprudence- whether numerical marks, particularly those comprising arbitrary digit combinations, can be considered ‘inherently distinctive’ and eligible for registration without needing to acquire distinctiveness through use.

The aforementioned case arose from an appeal filed against the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to register the numerical mark '2929' under Class 03 for cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, and other related goods. The Court's judgment not only clarifies the legal position on numeral-based trademarks but also reaffirms the evolving nature of brand distinctiveness in the modern commercial landscape.

Arguments

The Appellant’s mark '2929' was rejected by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the basis that the mark consisted solely of common numerals, devoid of distinctive character or creativity, and thus, did not qualify for protection under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It further reasoned that numeral combinations, unless having acquired secondary meaning, are generally incapable of functioning as source identifiers and should not be monopolized by any single entity.

The Appellant, Vineet Kapur, on the other hand, argued that the mark ‘2929’ is an arbitrary and unique numerical combination with no descriptive or direct association with the goods in Class 03, and therefore qualifies as inherently distinctive under the Act. It was contended that at the time of adoption, no similar mark was in use in the relevant market, and the mark had not become customary in the trade. The Appellant further submitted that Section 2(1)(m) of the Act expressly includes numerals within the definition of a “mark”, and that the law does not exclude numerical marks from protection merely due to their numeric nature. It was also contended that the mark was filed on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis, and inherent distinctiveness does not require prior use or acquired secondary meaning.

Legal Framework and Analysis

The Court interpreted Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, affirming that numerals and combinations thereof fall within the definition of a “mark.” It clarified that the law indeed does not exclude numerical marks per se from registration and rather emphasized on the requirement of its capability of distinguishing the goods or services of one trader from those of another. The Court underscored that the distinctiveness of a mark must be evaluated in the context of the goods it represents. A numerical mark that is arbitrary and unrelated to the nature of the goods can, in itself, be inherently distinctive.

To reinforce this, the judgment also cited various Indian precedents upholding numerical marks: Tata Oil Mills v. Reward Soap Works^[2], which permitted use of the ‘501’ mark for soaps, ‘345’ for bidis in Samrat Bidi Works v. Dayalal Meghji & Co^[3]. case, as well as  ‘555’ mark for incense sticks in Jagan Nath Prem Nath v. Bharttya Dhoop Karyalaya^[4].

The Court further drew inspiration from McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition (Volume 1, Fifth Edition), a leading international treatise, to confirm that numbers can serve as valid trademarks when they function as source identifiers- stating as under:

"It is very clear that no manufacturer would have the right exclusively to appropriate the figures 1, 2, 3, and 4, or the letters A, B, C, and D, to distinguish the first, second, third and fourth quality of his goods, respectively ..... It is equally clear, however, that if for a long period of time he had used the same figures in combination, as '3214', to distinguish his own goods from those of others, so that the public had come to know them by these numerals, he would be protected."

Applying these principles to the case at hand, the Court held that the mark ‘2929’ is a coined, arbitrary combination of numerals with no direct or indirect reference to the nature, quality, or intended purpose of goods such as cosmetics or personal care products in Class 03. Since the mark does not describe the goods and is not commonly used in the relevant trade, it was found to be inherently distinctive and capable of distinguishing the Appellant’s goods from those of others. The Court further noted that the proposed use basis of the application did not preclude a finding of inherent distinctiveness, and accordingly, the mark was held to be registrable under the Act. Therefore, it qualifies as an inherently distinctive mark. The Court also clarified that the fact that the application was filed on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis neither precluded a finding of inherent distinctiveness nor affected its registrability, and accordingly, the mark was held to be registrable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Additionally, the Court imposed a common-sense restriction: while ‘2929’ may be registered, the applicant cannot claim exclusive rights over the individual digits ‘2’ or ‘9’, which are commonly used elements.

Implications and Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling in the case of Vineet Kapur v. Registrar of Trade Marks is a progressive and well-reasoned development in Indian trademark law. By upholding '2929' as a registrable mark, the Court has paved the way for wider acceptance of numerical branding in India’s trademark regime, encouraging creative use of digits to build distinctive brand identities in competitive marketplaces. It confirms that arbitrary numerical combinations, when unconnected to the nature or characteristics of the goods, can serve as inherently distinctive marks capable of registration without having to show prior use or secondary meaning. This decision aligns Indian jurisprudence with international norms and provides clarity to brand owners considering innovative branding strategies, including numeral-based trademarks. It reflects a nuanced understanding of how modern consumers perceive brands and reiterates that the touchstone of trademark protection is embedded in distinctiveness- whether inherent or acquired. It also underscores that registration of such marks does not confer monopoly over individual digits, thereby balancing the interests of applicants with the principles of public domain and fair competition.

References:

^[1] CA/Comm, IPD-TM, 22/2024, 25 April 2025)

^[2] 1982 SCC OnLine Del 116

^[3] 1999 PTC 610 (345/645)

^[4] 1975 SCC OnLine Del 79