INDITEX filed an application with the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (SPTO) to register a figurative trademark consisting of the following numerical sequence: 26 1 18 1. However, the SPTO rejected this application on the grounds that the trademark lacked distinctiveness.

INDITEX then filed a lawsuit with the Provincial Court of Madrid, arguing that the sign had intrinsic distinctiveness and that, in any case, it had acquired distinctiveness. However, the lawsuit was dismissed because it was considered that the trademark did not allow the identification of the products applied for in relation to a specific business origin. The judgement stated that while numbers can constitute a trademark, this was not the case because the combination of numbers did not allow the identification of the word ‘ZARA’, in the English alphabet, which was the intended objective of the trademark, This makes it it practically impossible for the general public to remember it. Furthermore, the graphic component of the trademark is of little relevance. Regarding the acquired distinctiveness argument, this was also rejected because it would only apply to the trademark ‘ZARA’ and not to the applied-for sign.

INDITEX appealed the decision before the Spanish Supreme Court, arguing that the trademark had been assessed in an abstract manner and that a detailed assessment should have been carried out instead, for each of the products applied for, resulting in an erroneous judgement regarding the sign distinctiveness. The company also argued that the trademark was assessed more severely because it was a numeric sign.

The Spanish Supreme Court considered that the lack of distinctiveness observed by the Provincial Court was not due to a problem of descriptive aptitude for the goods and services applied for, but rather due to an assessment of lack of intrinsic distinctiveness arising from the sign itself, rather than from its the relationship with the goods applied for. However, it recognises that in the case of numerical marks, assessing arbitrariness is particularly important: the numerical trademark must have its own meaning and must not perform a denotative function (it cannot be generic or descriptive). In view of this criterion, the Spanish Supreme Court concluded that the Provincial Court had erroneously applied a restricted criterion of distinctiveness to a numerical mark.

The numbers on the sign correspond to the letters ZARA in the English alphabet. Given the ZARA brand’s significant reputation, it cannot be ruled that the average consumer won’t identify goods bearing the numerical sign as originating from ZARA (INDITEX). The numerical combination is short and easy to remember, consisting of four numbers, one of which is repeated.

Additionally, the auditory perception of the sign must also be considered. Contrary to the contested decision, the possible alteration of the order of the numbers does not detract from its distinctiveness because the phonetic distinction remains.

For these reasons, INDITEX’s appeal is upheld and the trademark is registered.

Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court, 4139/2025 of 24 September 2025.