Numbers Can Be Powerful - Understanding Trademark Rights On Numerals

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Intellectual Property

Published: 2026-08-23T20:41:05.492026+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:10:17.459+00:00

NUMBERS CAN BE POWERFUL: UNDERSTANDING

TRADEMARK RIGHTS ON NUMERALS

Hrishabh Daga, O.P. Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat, India

ABSTRACT

Trademark rights in the Indian legal landscape, particularly in relation to numerals, present difficult challenges and considerations. Numerals, with their inherent descriptive nature, frequently lack distinctiveness, which is a key criterion for trademark protection under Indian law. This does not, however, preclude the possibility that numerals may not be trademarkable. Under certain conditions, numerals can acquire distinctiveness and become eligible for trademark protection under the law and by the courts. Furthermore, numeral trademarks may not be generic or customary in the industry to which they belong. The same law and principles apply to numerals as they do to other aspects.

As the Indian business sector grows, producers want to protect intellectual property while ensuring smooth operations, while enforcement authorities want to prevent a monopoly on a specific trademark in the hands of a few whiles depriving the rest. The purpose of this article is to examine the framework, challenges, and solutions based on legal precedents surrounding numeral trademarks in India. Keywords: Trademark, Numerals, Distinctiveness, Generic, Monopoly

Introduction: In the new digital age, brands and companies seek ways to stand out from the rest of the lot when it comes to being unique. For this, they equip logos, slogans, titles and symbols of different fonts, shapes and colours. All of this is protected by the Trademarks Act of 1999, India. However, what about numerals or a number? To the shock of many, numerals are also powerful tools of branding and are protected by the trademark law of the country. This article aims to delve deep into trademarking of numerals in the Indian Legal Landscape, while emphasizing on the importance of factors that influence registrability and the benefits of including numerals within the scope of intellectual property. The Indian legal landscape includes numbers within the ambit of trademarks.

Section 2(1)(m) of the Trademarks Act of 19991, explicitly includes ‘numerals’ within the definition of those entities that can fall into the ambit of the ‘mark’. This allows business and companies to use numbers as distinct identifiers of their goods and services. However, the essential aspect is that not all numbers are created equally. The registration of the trademark when it comes to numerals or numbers is an essential aspect that involves a lot of grey area. Drawing inference from the case law, Skol Breweries Limited v. Fortune Alcobrew Limited2, where the defendants used the trademark ‘5000’ on the ground that the number existed in public domain and can be used by anyone. The Delhi High Court, came to this conclusion that an individual does have the right to trademark numerals.

In this case the plaintiff had been using the said numeral for the sale of his goods and that had developed a reputation for the contested numeral in relation to the goods sold, whereby customers identified that numeral in relation to the goods sold by the plaintiff. The Judge in the case, concluded from the facts and circumstances that the defendant had decided to use the same numeral to cash in on the goodwill built by the plaintiff for years of service and hence granted injunction to the plaintiff for the damages caused by the action of the defendant. While the Indian legal system, allows trademarks of numbers, this doesn’t mean that you take any number and expect it to be protected by the law for your product or service. Some numbers are always stronger and better candidates than others due to different attributes:

1 Trademarks Act, 1999, § 2(1)(m) (India).

2 Skol Breweries Limited v. Fortune Alcobrew Limited, 2012 (52) PTC 231 (Del)

Power of Distinctiveness: This attribute is the cornerstone of trademark law. For any symbol, including a numeral to be registered under the trademark law, its need to be distinct or distinctive to use. a) Generic Numbers: In an application to trademark the numeral ‘2’ for footwear or ‘1’ for a single piece of utensil, the number in either case just refers to the quantity of the product sold. Similarly, using the phone number or the address number of a person to sell the products that he manufactures again fails the power of distinctiveness, as it is too generic and hence wouldn’t qualify as trademarks. b) Acquired Distinctiveness: A common number or a generic number, becomes distinctive, if it has been used in a specific way for a particular period. For instance, 123- a very common and generic number.

However, if this 123, is used by a manufacturer for their product along side a creative logo and proper marketing than this grants that manufacturer the distinctiveness to use the number for its product. Drawing inference from the case of Brij Mohan Bhatia v. Jain Sales Corporation & Ors3. Whereby the plaintiff was a manufacturer of ‘agarbattis’ (incense sticks) and used the numeral 555 for the product for a good period.

However, the defendant was a manufacturer of 'dhoopagarbatis' and 'havan samagaris' (items used for rituals and prayers) and after entering the market, used the same numeral for his product and had no evidence of using the same numeral before, this led to prima facie support, that the defendant had done so deliberately as these numerals have come to be associated in the mind of the public with a particular quality of 'agarbatti' made by the manufacturer of trademarks with these numerals-plaintiff. c) Creativity: If a numeral is presented in a creative manner, the test of distinctiveness can be achieved. A bakery using the numeral ‘2’ made from two overlapping slices of bread or a watch company using the numeral ‘8’ to represent a stylish hourglass, depicts creativity and hence adds a certain level of distinctiveness to the numeral trademark.

Drawing inference from the case of Carlsberg India Pvt Ltd v. Radico Khaitan Ltd, the plaintiff was aggrieved that the defendant used the same mark of ‘8’ in a similar font and colour- golden. This led to misrepresentation and hence negatively affected the

3 Brij Mohan Bhatia v. Jain Sales Corporation & Ors, 1998 (18) PTC 283 (Del)

plaintiff and his products and asked the defendant to change the font and the colour in the packing and advisement, due to similarity in the creative aspect of using ‘8’ as the trademark. 4 In the case of The Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd v. Reward Soap Works5, numeral 501 was registered by the plaintiff, while the defendant used the numeral 507 on the wrapper of the soap products that it manufactured. The get-up, the colour and the arrangement of the numerals, could showcase an over-all deceptive similarity, which showcased prima facie, an infringement of the trademarks of the plaintiff and even in the case of the wrapper, the exact copy- attracted Copyright claims. This deceptive similarity is likely to cause confusion during trade, particularly among consumers of washing soap.

The plaintiff's soap bearing the mark and wrapper is admittedly extremely popular, which exacerbates the situation. Prima facie, the plaintiff would be entitled to the protection sought. Both above-mentioned cases just showcase the power of creativity, had the defendant used the same number 507-in a creative manner, distinct and different from that of the plaintiff, he would have not attracted the trademark infringement claims. Creativity can be as simple as different font, colour, shape and size of the exact number or a similar number and can fits perfectly well into the test of distinctiveness. 6 Avoiding descriptiveness is essential to avoid trademark violations.

A regular issue in the field of trademarks is that, companies often intermingle the functionality with the branding, using ‘4’ as the logo for a car tire manufacturing unit or trying to register ‘10’ as the trademark for a company that manufacturers 10 inch measuring tapes, involves cases where the numeral directly depicts the functional aspect of the company and then attracts the non-descriptiveness and hence receives trademark violation suits and rejections from the registrar. The best solution to avoid such instances include to find a balance, where the numeral is neither descriptive nor generic. This allows even common numerals like, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on- getting trademark protection due to the creative and unique way of presentation without directly describing their product as inferred from the case of M. /S. Gora Mal Hari Ram v. M/S. Ashique Exports7.

4 Carlsberg India Pvt Ltd v. Radico Khaitan Ltd, 2018 (73) PTC 200 (Del)

5 The Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd v. Reward Soap Works, AIR 1963 Mad 248

6 Harshita Rawat, Trademarking Numbers: Understanding the Numeral Trend,

https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/trademarking-numbers-understanding-the-numeral-trend/ (last visited July 1, 2024).

7 M/S. Gora Mal Hari Ram v. M/S. Ashique Exports, 2007 (35) PTC 476 (Del)

Power of Context: Ordinary numerals can achieve the trademark status depending on how they are presented. Many of the times they are combined with other elements to achieve the status of trademark. Chanel’s N*5 (perfume) or the International Racing’s F1 (Formula 1), where both the numbers ‘5’ and ‘1’ are presented in a creative design. Drawing inference from the case of Mona Aggarwal & Anr v. Glossy Colour & Paints8 the plaintiff adopted the mark ‘6004’ in 2011, while the respondent adopted the mark ‘1001’ in 1946, due to similarity in the context of the two marks, the quarrel reached before the court.

The court in this case, gave an essential aspect that in such situations which deal with trademarks of similar goods, the mark in total- inclusive of numbers, colour and overall settings must be deceptively similar for the ruling to be in favour of either party, who has suffered the damages due to deception of the minds of the common folk. Infinite Scope: Currently all numbers from 0 to 9 have infinite permutations and combinations that can be used to achieving the status of the trademark. In this realm, the owner of trademark ‘81’ can injunct the owner of trademark ‘82’, on the grounds that the ‘8’ in both is common and like to the eyes of the public. With this logic at hand, the faster an individual owns a trademark, the better and gets to stop another from doing the same. The Delhi High Court in its recent judgment- Alphavector India Pvt. Ltd v.

M/S Sach Industries9 granted protection to the plaintiff for his bicycles and trademark ‘91’ and injuncted the defendant for his bicycles and trademark ’99’, on the grounds that the ‘9’ was common in both trademarks. The issue that revolved around the judgment of this case was the fact that the court didn’t mention the provision on infringement claim that is section 29(1), (2) of the Trademarks Act of 199910, but made the conclusion based on two essential principles: a) In case of clear imitation and intent to deceive, the court shall not presume the intent is unsuccessful.

8 Mona Aggarwal & Anr v. Glossy Colour & Paints, 2017 (70) PTC 426 (Del)

9 Alphavector India Pvt. Ltd v. M/S Sach Industries, 2023 (85) PTC 112 (Del)

10 Trademarks Act, 1999, § 29(1) & (2) (India).

b) And, if found that the intent to deceive is there, the court shall emphasize more on the similarities and not the dissimilarities. The entire judgment of infringement was based on the intent of the defendant and this intent was based on imitation, which in turn was based on similarity, hence showcasing intent, because of the imitation and the loop carries on. The court in this case failed to understand the point, that similarity is not prohibited under the law and coined the fact that the defendant used a trademark in the nineties close to that of the plaintiff and hence had ill intention to confuse the customers and make profits due to this created confusion. Another side of the Delhi High Court, in the case of Vrajlal Manilal & Co v.

Adarsh Bidi11 also granted protection to the plaintiff’s trademark of ‘22’ as against the defendant’s impugned mark of ‘122’ some similar grounds of ill intent and imitation, which was backed by evidence that showcased the trademark similarities and the adoption of ‘122’ by the defendant only to trade on and profit from the plaintiffs' hard-earned goodwill and existing reputation through illegal means, selling inferior quality 'Bidis' as the plaintiffs' products, and misrepresenting the public. Conclusion: To summarise, the inclusion of numerals as trademarkable aspects under the Trademarks Act of 1999 significantly broadens the realm of intellectual property protection in India. This provision allows enterprises to use numbers (independently or in collaboration with others) as unique identifiers for their brands.

Understanding the legal framework and its emphasis on distinctiveness allows businesses to use the power of numbers to differentiate themselves from their competitors. As the commercial industry evolves, numerals may become an effective tool for brand differentiation and customer identification.

11 Vrajlal Manilal & Co v. Adarsh Bidi, 2005 (31) PTC 285 (Del)