Delhi High Court rules that numeric trademarks can be registered if...

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that numerical combinations, if arbitrary and distinctive, are eligible for trademark registration under Indian law, even if they consist solely of numerical digits [Vineet Kapur v. Registrar of Trade Marks]..The judgment was passed on an appeal filed against the refusal to register the mark ‘2929’ in Class 3, which covers cosmetics, soaps, shampoos and related goods.Justice Mini Pushkarna held that a numeral mark such as ‘2929’ falls within the definition of a “mark” under Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and cannot be rejected only because it consisted of numbers. “A mark cannot be refused registration merely on the ground that it consists of a combination of numbers. Rather, it has to be seen whether or not such numeral mark is devoid of any distinctive character,” the Court held..The appeal before the Court was filed by one Vineet Kapur who sought to register '2929' as a trademark for a cosmetics product. The Trade Marks Registry rejected the application for such trademark registration, on the ground that the mark lacked distinctiveness and comprised common numerals which the applicant (Kapur) was not entitled to monopolise. This led Kapur to file an appeal before the High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He contended that the mark ‘2929’ was coined by him and had no connection to the product in relation to which it was sought to be used. Therefore, the mark was a inherently distinctive, he argued. .The Court found merit in Kapur's submissions. It emphasised that numerals can function as source identifiers or trademarks, if numerical combination is arbitrary in nature and unrelated to the goods in connection with which they are used.It also relied on a series of precedents—including Tata Oil Mills v. Reward Soap Works (with respect to the trademark registration of the mark ‘501’), Glossy Color & Paints v. Mona Aggarwal (mark ‘1001’), and Alphavector India v. Sach Industries (mark ‘91’)—where courts had upheld trademark protection for number-based marks..The Court further noted that Kapur already held multiple registered numerical marks—such as ‘9292’, ‘1111’, and ‘1010’—in both word and device formats for Class 3 goods. The mark ‘2929’, the Court held, was of a similar nature and qualified for protection.The Court also drew support from the case of McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, which affirmed that numerical combinations, if used consistently to identify source, can acquire trademark status..Setting aside the Registrar’s February 2024 order, the Court directed that the application for the mark ‘2929’ (No. 5151862) be advertised in the Trademark Journal.However, it added,“The appellant shall not claim any exclusive right over the numerals ‘2’ and ‘9’. This order shall not affect any opposition proceedings that may be instituted by third parties.”The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for compliance..Kapur was represented by Advocates Vaibhav Vutts, Bijaharini G., Aamna Hasan and Aarya Deshmukh.The Trademarks Registry was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Nidhi Raman with Advocates Zubin Singh and Arnav Mittal..[Read Judgment]