ARTICLE
14 January 2025

A To Z Meets 1 To 10: The Rise Of Alphanumeric Brand Names

I
IndusLaw

Contributor

INDUSLAW is a multi-speciality Indian law firm, advising a wide range of international and domestic clients from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups, and government and regulatory bodies.
Numbers are not just for math—they can be powerful branding tools. When combined with alphabets, an alphanumeric trademark has the ability to build strong brand recall. This became evident recently
India Intellectual Property

Numbers are not just for math—they can be powerful branding tools. When combined with alphabets, an alphanumeric trademark has the ability to build strong brand recall. This became evident recently when IndiGo Airlines took Mahindra to Court over its planned use of the term "BE 6e" for an upcoming SUV. IndiGo claimed that Mahindra's proposed alphanumeric name infringed its well-known "6E" trademark. This dispute gained widespread media attention, especially since it pitted 2 (two) well-known brands against each other and also threw into focus the aspect of alphanumeric trademarks.

Alphanumeric trademarks—those combining letters and numbers—are recognized under Indian law, provided they can play the role of a trademark, i.e. creating brand recall. However, these trademarks often face challenges because they may seem too generic or descriptive as they lack distinctiveness Alphanumeric and numeral trademarks are contentious when it comes to distinctiveness because they must balance their role as source indicators with the need to avoid granting undue monopoly over a numeral to a single person or entity. Alphanumeric and numeral trademarks are symbols composed of alphabet and numeral combinations or entirely of numbers, like the soft drink "7UP", and the number "22" for a brand of beedis.1 Such trademarks usually face hurdles due to their lack of "inherent distinctiveness." The Trademarks Registry does not seem to have a uniform approach for alphanumeric and numeral trademarks. The objections or refusals are usually due to non-distinctiveness. In our experience, the registrations are usually if the applicant successfully demonstrates that the alphanumeric or numeral trademark is an arbitrary word, does not conflict with an earlier trademark, and has acquired distinctiveness through usage. As discussed, indeed, the threshold for registering alphanumeric trademarks is harder given the requirement of distinctiveness, however, many companies have successfully registered alphanumeric trademarks, including Indigo registering the "6E" trademark. A few examples of such registered trademarks are 1568392a.jpg for machines, Sony's, 1568392b.jpg "A6" owned by Audi, etc. Further, distinctiveness does not always have to be immediate—it can be built over time. Brands that consistently and exclusively use their alphanumeric trademarks can earn protection. In the case of numerical trademarks, Courts have previously upheld trademarks involving numbers, such as "99" and "91"2, because they became recognizable to consumers through strong branding efforts. Similarly, in the case of Radico Khaitan3, involving the alphanumeric trademark – "PALONE 8", the Court emphasized that a trademark can only be protected if it signals the brand to consumers.

IndiGo's "6E" is a great example of an alphanumeric trademark that has achieved recognition and distinctiveness. As the airline's official code, "6E" is not just functional but integral to its branding—it appears on in-flight services, loyalty programs, magazines, and even meals. In the aviation sector, "6E" is synonymous with IndiGo. However, Mahindra's "BE 6e" trademark is being used for a completely different product—vehicles—and falls under a separate trademark class. This creates a unique challenge.

Given the different businesses under the 2 (two) rival trademarks, IndiGo would have to prove that its "6E" trademark is well-known, such that it is accorded protection even against dissimilar goods and services. This case allows the Delhi High Court to set a precedent for how alphanumeric trademarks are protected across industries. For businesses, it is a reminder that even numbers and letters can be valuable assets—if you know how to protect them.

We can conclude that several factors must be considered when adjudicating issues related to alphanumeric or numerical trademarks. Notably, the attainment of secondary meaning among the target consumers is crucial in overcoming the non-distinctiveness of such trademarks. Case law suggests that when an applicant can demonstrate a public association between the trademark and their brand, courts are more inclined to grant exclusive rights over it.

Footnotes

1. Vrajlal Manilal v. Adarsh Bidi Co., 1995 SCC OnLine Del 73

2. Alphavector India (P) Ltd. v. Sach Industries 2023 SCC OnLine Del 615

3. Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v. Radico Khaitan Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5497

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More