Summary
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court overturned the Trademark Registrar’s refusal of the numerical mark ‘2929’. It ruled that numerical marks can be registrable when they are arbitrary and distinctive. The Court stated that mere use of numerals is not a ground for refusal, provided the mark helps distinguish the applicant’s goods from those of others.
The Delhi High Court recently set aside a refusal issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks, clearing the way for the registration of the numerical mark ‘2929’ in Class 3.
The 2929 Trademark Application
The trademark application, filed by Vineet Kapur, sought protection for a range of cosmetic and personal care products. The Registrar rejected the mark, citing lack of distinctiveness, stating that a simple combination of common numerals could not function as a trademark.
Contentions on Appeal
On appeal, the appellant contended that ‘2929’ is a coined and arbitrary mark with no descriptive relevance to the goods. Furthermore, the Appellant argued that it was inherently distinctive and capable of registration even without acquired distinctiveness or long-standing use. The applicant also pointed out that several other numerical marks, including ‘9292’, ‘1111’, and ‘1010’, had already been registered in his name for the same class of goods.
The Court on 2929 Trademark
Rejecting the Registrar’s position, the Court held that numerals are expressly included within the definition of a “mark” under the Trade Marks Act. As per the Court, mere use of numbers was not a valid ground for refusal. What must be assessed is whether the mark can distinguish the applicant’s goods from those of others. On this count, the Court found that the mark ‘2929’ had no connection to the characteristics of the goods and was not commonly used in trade for such products.
The Court referred to several earlier decisions where numerical marks such as ‘501’, ‘345’, ‘555’, and ‘91’ were granted protection. According to the Court, these precedents reaffirmed the principle that a combination of numbers can function as a trademark when it is arbitrary and distinctive in the context of the goods in question. The Court also drew on established trademark literature, which recognises that even simple numerical sequences can serve as valid source identifiers if they are used in a distinctive manner.
Based on its analysis, the Court concluded that ‘2929’ is inherently distinctive, arbitrary, and registrable. It directed that the mark proceed to advertisement in the Trademark Journal, subject to the condition that the applicant will not have exclusive rights over the individual digits ‘2’ and ‘9’. It also clarified that the decision would not affect any opposition proceedings that may be filed by third parties.
Citation: Vineet Kapur v. Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 22/2024 (Del. HC Apr. 25, 2025). Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/102916826/, Visited on: 01/05/2025.
You Might Also Want To Read
