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 for machines, Sony's,
"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.