Can numbers be trademarks? Delhi High Court ruling opens new front

The Delhi HC ruling came in an appeal by Vineet Kapur, who sought to register "2929" as a trademark for a cosmetics product

law
In her decision, Justice Mini Pushkarna held that a numeral mark such as “2929” fell within the definition of a “mark” under Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and couldn’t be rejected only because it consisted of numbers.
Bhavini Mishra New Delhi
4 min read Last Updated : Jun 26 2025 | 11:49 PM IST
A recent Delhi High Court ruling allowing arbitrary and distinctive numerical combinations to be eligible to be registered as a trademark in India may result in multiple litigations of similar looking, sounding, and appearing trademarks, legal experts said.
 
They are of the opinion that while numbers have historically been accepted as a trademark globally, the ruling paves the way for big business houses and opportunistic persons monopolising the registration of culturally significant and popular numbers, especially in countries such as India.
 
Numerals have historically been popular forms of trademarks, said Swati Sharma, partner (head-intellectual property) at law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.
 
"Some examples include ‘555’ trademark, for a popular cigarette brand, and ‘No. 5’, registered as a perfume by Chanel, among others," she said, adding that as long as the numerals are distinctive for the goods and services to which they are applied, these can be registered as a trademark. 
 
Other experts, however, caution that there could be an outburst of litigations with similar looking trademarks, and a flood of entries in the trademark register. The ruling would, therefore, need a lot of legislative reformation in the field of intellectual property laws, said Varun Singh, the founder and managing partner at law firm Foresight Law Offices.
 
The Delhi HC ruling came in an appeal by Vineet Kapur, who sought to register “2929” as a trademark for a cosmetics product. The Trade Marks Registry rejected Kapur’s application on the grounds that the trademark sought to be registered lacked distinctiveness and comprised common numerals, which the applicant was not entitled to monopolise. Kapur appealed this decision before the Delhi HC.
 
In her decision, Justice Mini Pushkarna held that a numeral mark such as “2929” fell within the definition of a “mark” under Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and couldn’t be rejected only because it consisted of numbers.
 
Globally, several iconic brands such as Jack Daniel’s “Old No 7”, Levi’s “501” jeans, “WD-40”, and “4711”, a traditional German cologne brand, rely on numeric trademarks to convey distinctiveness. In India, products such as “5 Star” and “7 Up” have also used numerals very effectively as the central element of their brand identity.
 
"The test remains whether the consuming public associates the number with a particular commercial origin. If it does, then the law affords it the same protection as any other trademark," said Ankit Sahni, partner at law firm Ajay Sahni and Associates.
 
While the HC appears to be legally sound, it might raise a few questions on the process of registration of trademarks, and whether a trademark on numbers can be registered if the said digits are written in a completely different design, font, and colour scheme. 
 
“Can numerical marks in word form, say ‘twenty-nine twenty-nine’, confer distinctiveness? Can word-form numerals in Hindi, Urdu, or regional languages, say ‘saat sau sattavan’ for 757, be considered distinctive,” Singh asked.
 
Section 9 of the Trademarks Act prohibits registration of trademarks that are not only devoid of distinctive character, but are also descriptive, obscene, customary in trade and language, that hurt religious susceptibilities, and deceive consumers or are prohibited by law.
 
"Numerals that have become evocative of a national/international event or incident, such as 911, may be refused registration by the Trademarks office as these numerals denote an international event and may hurt the sentiments of the public, may be regarded as scandalous," Sharma said.

One subscription. Two world-class reads.

Already subscribed? Log in

Subscribe to read the full story →
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

Topics :Delhi High CourtTrademark RulesTrademarkTrademark applications

Next Story