Trademarking Numbers in India: Analysis of Vineet Kapur v. Registrar of Trade Marks

For a very long time, numbers have not just been used in day-to-day activities, like measuring quantity, keeping track of time, following numerical sequences, but they are also used in scientific calculations, inventions and mathematical calculations. However, no one could have thought that the same numbers could someday become important marks for identifying a brand name.  Many brands and convenience stores like 7-Eleven[1] has been registered as a trademark. This clearly shows that numbers do have the capability to evoke a sense of distinctiveness associated with a brand. However, this growing trend of strong number brand identity has given rise to a lot of doubts and questions related to trademark laws, like whether just string of numbers without any alphabetical letters or graphical and visual representation can get trademark registration? Whether any particular standard required to be met for registration?  These questions had been a bone of contention between the trademark registry, the courts and the proprietors. Given this background, in the case of Vineet Kapur v. Registrar of Trade Marks[2] The Delhi Court has evaluated the registration pertaining to the number 2929. The court has given a detailed reasoning and overruled the rejection by the Trademark registrar on their refusal to grant registration for the number 2929. This blog explores the case's facts, the court's verdict, analysis, and possible consequences for Indian trademark law.

Facts

The dispute focuses on an appeal filed against the refusal of registration of the trademark application. The appellant had submitted an application for registration, which included the number "2929."The application has been filed under Class 3, which deals with goods like cosmetics and is proposed to be used basis, which means that the mark has still not been introduced in the market at the time of filing. However, the registrar had rejected this trademark application, stating Section 9[3] would come into play as the mark lacked distinctive character. The appellant challenges this decision by contending that many numerical marks by the appellant that had been granted registration, like 9292,1010 and 1111. He further says that the said mark is arbitrary and inherently distinctive in nature.  On the other hand, the registrar contends that mere numbers cannot be monopolised unless there is sufficient evidence of acquired distinctiveness.

The Court’s decision

After hearing the arguments on both sides, the court concluded that numerical marks, as long as they meet all the requirements under the Trademarks Act, would be capable of registration. The court goes on to say that under the definition of mark in 2(M),[4] the numbers and their combinations are explicitly identified as a mark. Hence, numbers should not be automatically disqualified from getting registered. When questions about distinctiveness were discussed, the court found that the mark is coined and arbitrary combinations of numbers, with no relation to the nature of the characteristics of the goods. The mark was found to be inherently distinctive because it was used in common trade for the goods mentioned.  The court further elaborated upon how the applicant had already registered many numbers and went on to give many precedents where the numerical marks had been registered, like 501, 345, etc.  Finally, the court set aside the registry’s order and also clarified that the appellant could not claim rights over the numbers 2 and 9, but just the specific numerical combination 2929.

Analysis

What has been the trend?

There have been various instances of trademark registration of the numerical marks. One such example can be of Urmin Products Pvt Ltd., where the company successfully got their mark “153” registered. The registry, however, first objected to the mark on the grounds that it was non-distinctive, but once Urimin established that the mark is registrable, they agreed. However, some marks like “R55” were refused to get registered because they failed to prove their mark’s distinctiveness.[5] What one can conclude is that registration is based on the ability of the proprietor to prove whether their mark is arbitrary or whether they have acquired distinctiveness.

Numbers as Brand Identifier

We see the growing use of numbers as a brand identifier. The reason can be that numbers are short, easy to remember and offer a smart and creative way to stand out in the competitive market. The court highlights that the most important test is whether the consumer is able to associate the number with that particular origin. If the mark traces back to the origin, then the mark is serving its purpose regardless of whether they are made up of numbers, words or symbols. In ITC Limited V. Britannia Industries Ltd[6] the court has reiterated that the overall packaging and colour scheme formed the basis of the brand identity and consumer association, thus non-traditional marks such as numbers can be valid trademarks if they create a distinct brand impression in the mind of consumers.

Balance between Public Welfare and Monopoly

While granting registration, the court also clarified that the applicant could not claim exclusive rights over individual numbers 2 and 9. The protection of the mark is just for the numerical combination 2929. This will not only prevent the monopoly but also make sure that other people have the right to access basic numbers, thus encouraging creativity. This stance has been supported by various judgments like  Carlsberg vs. Radico Khaitan Limited[7]. In this, the court has declared that the registry does not grant protection for single digits, colours and letters. 

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Difference between Word and Device Mark

Although having the device mark registered for 2929, the registrar still objected to the word mark ”2929”. It argued that word and device marks are not the same thing, and that registering a device mark does not grant the applicant the right to register a word mark. The court did agree to this principle. This explains that even if the device mark had been registered, it would not protect the individual textual parts inside designs, but rather the overall visual representation. This has also been reiterated in the case of Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani & Anr[8]. The Delhi High Court in this particular case denied protection for the term "VASUNDHRA" even though the plaintiff had registered his logo.

Does it open the opportunity for the machine-generated marks?

This further opens the door of the trademark law towards the marks created by AI, algorithms used in e-commerce, crypto platforms, and virtual marketplaces. With the evolving technology, there is a high possibility that in the future, the marks will be created by machines. For example, if the mark X9R8Q2 becomes famous on Instagram or is used for digital goods or virtual fashion, and the consumers start associating the mark with a specific source, will it still be disqualified as a trademark?   If we apply the rationale given in the judgement, then, as long as the criteria of arbitrariness and potential source of identification are met, it can be called a mark. Thus, it might pave the way for the recognition of algorithmically generated marks.

 

Way forward

The judgment marks a progressive step towards the evolving competitive branding landscape. What more the Trademark registry can do is update its examination guidelines and develop a more flexible standard to assess the mark’s distinctiveness. That should mainly be based on the consumer’s association with the respective mark. Further, clear guidelines should be set up to assess the inherent distinctiveness of the mark. This will prevent the arbitrary refusal and encourage creativity in branding. Finally, the courts and the registries must work together to ensure that trademark protection does not result in monopolies over basic numbers.

Author:  Pragya Saigal, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

[1] “7 ELEVEN Trademark of 7-Eleven, Inc. - Serial Number 88623078 - FURM” <https://furm.com/trademarks/7-eleven-88623078> accessed 25 May 2025.

[2] Vineet Kapur v. Registrar of Trade Marks C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 22/2024.

[3] The Trademarks Act 1999, s 9.

[4] The Trademarks Act 1999, s 2(m).

[5] Rajan S, “The Number Game – Alphanumeric And Numeral Trademarks” Mondaq (December 20, 2024) <https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1560202/the-number-game-alphanumeric-and-numeral-trademarks>accessed 25 May 2025.

[6] Kasiva KS &, “ITC Limited V. Britannia Industries Ltd.” King Stubb & Kasiva (May 26, 2024) https://ksandk.com/newsletter/itc-limited-v-britannia-industries-ltd/  accessed 25 May 2025.

[7] Carlsberg vs. Radico Khaitan Limited CS(OS) 1216/2011.

[8] Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani & Anr CS(COMM) 363/2022.