The order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Vineet Kapur v. Registrar of Trade Marks passed on April 25, 2025, is a noteworthy progress in Indian trademark law, specifically with regard to the registrability of number marks. The case involved the appeal made by the appellant for registration of the mark ‘2929’ under Class 3, covering goods like cosmetics, nail enamel, soaps, and shampoos. The application had been refused by the Registrar of Trade Marks, mainly on the basis that the mark was a common combination of numbers and did not have any distinctive character. The Registrar also contended that the mark had not gained distinctiveness by use, and that combinations of common numerals in the absence of creativity could not be monopolized by anyone. The appellant, however, argued that ‘2929’ was a distinctive, arbitrary, and inherently distinctive mark, which could identify his goods from others in the marketplace.
The Court began its analysis by examining the statutory framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 2(1)(m) of the Act defines a “mark” to include numerals and any combination thereof, making it clear that numerals are eligible for registration as trademarks, provided they meet the requirements for registration. The Court emphasized that a mark cannot be refused registration merely because it consists of a combination of numbers. Instead, the critical question is whether the numeral mark is devoid of any distinctive character. The Court noted that the appellant already had several numerical trademarks registered in his favour, both as device marks and word marks, such as ‘2929’, ‘9292’, ‘1111’, and ‘1010’. These prior registrations demonstrated a consistent pattern of using numerical marks in relation to the goods in question and provided a context for evaluating the distinctiveness of ‘2929’1.
In order to further establish its rationale, the Court referred to a chain of judicial precedents in which numeric marks were afforded protection.
- The mark ‘501’ was protected as that for soap in Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. v. Reward Soap Works (AIR 1983 Delhi 286)
- ‘345’ for bidis in Samrat Bidi Works and others v. Dayalal Meghji and Company (AIR 1999 MP 10)
- ’22’ for bidis in M/s. Vrajlal Manilal and Co. v. M/s N.S. Bidi Co. and another (AIR 1987 Delhi 312)
- ‘1001’ for paints in Glossy Color & Paints Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Mona Aggarwal & Ors. (MANU/DE/3850/2015)
- ‘555’ for agarbattis in Jagan Nath Prem Nath v. Bharttya Dhoop Karyalaya (AIR 1975 Delhi 149) and
- ’91’ for bicycles in Alphavector India Pvt. Ltd. v. Sach Industries and Others (MANU / DE / 0574 / 2023)
Collectively, these cases defined that groups of numbers have consistently been held to be able to function as a trademark and are eligible for protection when they are arbitrary and do not describe the goods themselves.
In the case at hand, the mark ‘2929’ was held to be an arbitrary and coined mark and did not connote any meaning or relation with cosmetics and skincare items. The Court noted that the mark was not normally employed in commerce on such products and did not in any way describe or point to the goods either literally or figuratively. According to this, ‘2929’ was considered capable of distinguishing the appellant’s products from others, satisfying the test of distinctiveness under law.
The decision also made use of authoritative international writing, notably McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, which acknowledges that a single number, or multiple numbers, either separately or as part of other designations, may be accorded trademark status if they have the function to identify and differentiate the source of goods and services. The Court said that no producer can have exclusive rights over separate numerals for quality indication, but a distinctive sequence of numbers used regularly to mark commodities can gain distinctiveness and be considered a trademark.
Applying these principles to the facts in question, the Court held that ‘2929’ was an arbitrary and distinctive combination of the numerals ‘2’ and ‘9’, without reference to the nature or character of the goods. The mark was thus inherently distinctive and registrable upon application without proof of acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning through use. The Court dismissed the Registrar’s argument that the mark lacked any distinctive character, holding that refusal to register was not supportable in law.
The Court also settled the question of the extent of exclusivity which could be asserted by the appellant. In permitting the application for ‘2929’ to go on advertisement in the Trademark Journal, the Court made it clear that the appellant would not be able to claim exclusive rights in the individual numerals ‘2’ and ‘9’. This clarification is important since it avoids monopoly of the common digits, which are often used in commerce for many different reasons, but without giving up the distinctive combination as a source identifier for the goods of the appellant. The Court also observed that the current order would not exclude any opposition proceedings which could be initiated by third parties after publication of the mark. The implications of the judgment for Indian trademark law are significant. The Delhi High Court, in its judgment in Vineet Kapur v. Registrar of Trade Marks, lays out a clear and forward-looking precedent for the registrability of numerical marks in India.
By acknowledging the inherent uniqueness of random series of numbers, the ruling offers useful guidance to applicants for trademark, practitioners, and the Registry as well. It emphasizes the flexibility of trademark law to accommodate changing commercial customs and upholding the integrity of the system while safeguarding both business interests and public domain.
The judgment can be accessed from the following link:
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59225042025CAT222024_105820.pdf
Authored By:
Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate
Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court
Email id: [email protected]
Mobile No.: +91 9810081079
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vpdalmia/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vpdalmia
X (Twitter): @vpdalmia
AND
Aditya Dhar, Advocate
Associate Partner, Vaish Associates Advocates
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: +91 9971873110
