Let numbers talk: Branding numeric trademarks in India

Summary:

Is your brand ready for the numeric revolution? The “2929” Delhi High Court decision signals a pivotal shift, proving numbers can be powerful, distinctive trademarks in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Introduction

In branding, businesses have conventionally preferred word-based brand names, but purely numeric trademarks are gradually on the rise now, presenting a new breed of marks that impose new demands on strategies of protection and enforcement.

Numeric trademarks – not in combination with letters or words, like 7UP or G4S – but as standalone marks are gathering more attention now. Examples range from celebrity-backed brands like Kendall Jenner’s 818 Tequila (which uses just “818” – the area code of her hometown – as its brand name), to convenience stores like 7-Eleven (which emphasizes accessibility and round-the-clock service). These examples demonstrate that using numbers alone as a trademark can convey simplicity, memorability, and occasionally, even socio-cultural significance.

Why a brand would choose a number mark could be due to many factors, including as a strategic response to saturation in the trademark registry, or the evolution of a broader branding psychology which prefers minimalism.

New word marks are becoming increasingly hard to find – businesses struggle to find unique marks that have not already been claimed, or sound too similar to existing ones, or are vulnerable to being termed descriptive. Even coined terms can face opposition due to phonetic overlap or prior rights. At the same time, consumer behaviour and branding aesthetics are evolving. Consumers today, especially Gen Z and Millennials, are gravitating toward minimalist, abstract, and visually clean brand names. For such an audience, numbers, being short and memorable, appear distinctive and tech-forward. 

Registry resistance

Despite their growing appeal, numeric marks face some legal hurdles at the Trade Marks Registry. Under Section 9(1)(a) of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the Act”), trademarks must possess inherent distinctiveness, which is broadly understood as the ability to distinguish the goods or services of one entity from another. Numeric marks are frequently objected to as being devoid of distinctive character. Marks that consist of common or sequential numbers are particularly at risk of being called out.

The Registry’s general reasoning appears to be that numbers are either functional (e.g., “365” for a calendar service) or too short or simplistic, to serve as badges of origin. Additionally, single-digit or two-digit numeric marks, in particular, are viewed as catalog references or model numbers, not source identifiers. This places a high burden of proof on applicants to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness through use.

Trademarks law on numbers

Under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, a “mark” explicitly includes “numerals and any combination thereof”. That means numeric marks are legally recognized, if they satisfy the distinctiveness threshold. This is also corroborated by McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, which records that numbers have been recognised as marks for nearly 150 years (the earliest instance being 1882). 

It would be safe to say, therefore, that numbers are not inherently disqualified from registrability. The question is more along the lines of whether the numbers in question can signal source in the minds of consumers.

Welcome shift from Delhi High Court

In its decision of 25 April 2025, in Vineet Kapur vs. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors. [C.A. (Comm. IPD-TM) 22/2024], the Delhi High Court took a clear position which is of relevance for this discussion. The mark “2929” had been applied for under Class 3 (cosmetics and skincare), which the Registry rejected on the grounds of non-distinctiveness. The mark was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis and had no prior use.

However, the Court disagreed with the Registry and held that “2929” was coined and arbitrary, bearing no association with the goods. It did not describe the nature, quality, or function of the product. The mark was inherently distinctive and did not require secondary meaning. It passed the test under Section 9(1)(a) and was capable of distinguishing the goods of the applicant from others.

This ruling significantly reaffirms that distinctiveness must be judged in context. A mark that seems simple when viewed in isolation, can still be distinctive if it is uncommon in the trade and does not describe the product. Therefore, numeric marks, if chosen wisely, can meet that standard.

Takeaways for brand owners

For brand owners, a host of new creative and legal possibilities are opened up now, but traditional strategies must be now carefully tailored for numeric marks: 

1. Coin the mark: Use numeric sequences that are arbitrary or imaginative, not functional or industry-relevant. For example, it would be best to clearly avoid “365” for time-based services, or “911” for emergency products.
2. Consider starting with a stylized filing: Filing a logo or stylized version of your numeric mark may improve registrability. Once brand presence grows, it may be easier to file, and obtain registration, for the plain numeric mark.
3. Bundle branding elements: Consider building brand identity with mixed elements. For example, “Studio 909” or “Project 808”, can be the first step for branding. Once recognition builds and is established, the mark may be gradually simplified.
4. Early filing as brand defence: Filing on a proposed-to-be-used basis offers early protection in competitive industries and digital platforms, even before product launch.
5. Build distinctiveness through use: One must be prepared for objections, and back up one’s case with evidence of use, such website/app screenshots, packaging and product samples, proof of social media presence, invoices and order history, etc.
6. Monitor international trends: Precedents like “4711” (a perfume brand) is a classic example of how numeric marks can gain fame and distinctiveness globally.

The Delhi High Court decision is not just a win for “2929”, it may signal the beginning of a new branding era. In a world where attention spans have sharply dwindled, and abstract visual logos, and short digital handles are becoming the norm, numbers offer a new grammar. Their universality  means that are inherently flexible, symbolic, and scalable, without typical challenges of having to translate across languages or markets. 

Surely, with number marks, the idea of what constitutes a “name” continues to evolve.