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 \u20182929\u2019 in Class 3.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
On appeal, the appellant contended that \u20182929\u2019 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 \u20189292\u2019, \u20181111\u2019, and \u20181010\u2019, had already been registered in his name for the same class of goods.<\/p>\n
Rejecting the Registrar\u2019s position, the Court held that numerals are expressly included within the definition of a \u201cmark\u201d 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\u2019s goods from those of others. On this count, the Court found that the mark \u20182929\u2019 had no connection to the characteristics of the goods and was not commonly used in trade for such products.<\/p>\n
The Court referred to several earlier decisions where numerical marks such as \u2018501\u2019, \u2018345\u2019, \u2018555\u2019, and \u201891\u2019 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.<\/p>\n
Based on its analysis, the Court concluded that \u20182929\u2019 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 \u20182\u2019 and \u20189\u2019. It also clarified that the decision would not affect any opposition proceedings that may be filed by third parties.<\/p>\n