InterGlobe Aviation Limited, operating India’s largest airline, IndiGo, has initiated legal proceedings against Mahindra Electric Automobiles Ltd. for alleged trademark infringement concerning the use of the identifier “6E” in Mahindra’s electric vehicle branding, specifically the “Mahindra BE 6E.” This lawsuit, instituted before the Delhi High Court, underscores the evolving jurisprudence on trademark protection in contexts where distinct industries converge.
Dawn of the Dispute and IndiGo’s Contentions
The plaintiff, IndiGo, asserts that its operational call sign, “6E” forms an essential component of its brand identity and consumer goodwill. Registered as a trademark since 2015 across multiple classes, including advertising (Classes 9 and 35), transportation services (Class 39), and printed materials (Class 16), the identifier is integral to IndiGo’s suite of services such as “6E Prime” and “6E Flex.” IndiGo contends that the adoption of “6E” by Mahindra for its flagship electric vehicle could lead to consumer confusion, dilute its trademark’s distinctiveness, and erode the substantial goodwill painstakingly build by the airline’s brand.
The airline accentuates that their mark enjoys strong protection by virtue of its registration and longstanding use, making any unauthorized adoption in other sectors actionable under trademark law.
Key Developments in Legal Proceedings
The legal proceedings began on November 25, 2024, with IndiGo filing its suit before the Delhi High Court. The matter was initially listed on December 3, 2024, before Justice Amit Bansal, however, due to the judge’s recusation, it was reassigned to Justice Mini Pushkarna. During the subsequent hearing on December 7, 2024, Mahindra Electric informed the court that it had renamed the contested vehicle from “BE 6E” to “BE 6” and undertook to avoid further use of “6E” pending the case’s resolution.
Acknowledging this undertaking, Justice Mini Pushkarna disposed of IndiGo’s application for interim relief, directing the parties to complete the pleadings before the final hearing scheduled for April 2025. This timeline ensures a comprehensive examination of the issues at stake, with an opportunity for both parties to present their arguments fully.
Legal Scrutiny and Insinuations
This dispute elucidates the complex interplay between trademark protection and the doctrine of distinctiveness, particularly when marks transcend conventional industry boundaries. IndiGo’s claim orbits around the broader interpretation of trademark rights, arguing that their call sign has attained secondary meaning beyond aviation, warranting protection in other sectors.
Conversely, Mahindra’s defence is likely to emphasize the principle of territoriality within trademark classes, accentuating that its registration under Class 12 (motor vehicles) pertains to an entirely unrelated realm. The central issue revolves around whether trademarks can coexist across disparate industries without causing confusion, raising critical questions for interpretation and future trademark enforcement.
Implications for Trademark Jurisprudence
The outcome of this case is poised to have far-reaching ramifications for Indian trademark law. A decision in favor of IndiGo may strengthen the protection of trademarks across unrelated sectors, emphasizing the importance of brand reputation and goodwill. Conversely, a ruling favoring Mahindra may delineate the boundaries of trademark protection, reinforcing the principle that trademarks are confined to the specific classes for which they are registered.
This matter also serves as a convincing reminder for businesses to conduct rigorous due diligence during the branding process, particularly in an era of market convergence. The overlap between transport services (Class 39) and motor vehicles (Class 12) highlights the covert potential for conflicts, even in ostensibly unrelated industries.
At Aumirah, we are providing bespoke legal solutions that address the intricate challenges of intellectual property law., with a keen focus on trademark disputes and brand protection. The IndiGo-Mahindra case serves as a compelling reminder of the importance of understanding the boundaries and intersections of trademark rights across industries. At Aumirah, we proactively help our clients by conducting comprehensive assessments of their brands, identifying vulnerabilities, and ensuring strong protection strategies are in place to prevent future disputes. Our expert team excels in crafting solutions that safeguard intellectual assets with precision and diligence, preserving the integrity of our clients’ brands and enabling them to thrive in competitive and dynamic markets.
Conclusion:
As the approaches its final hearing in April 2025, the present dispute between IndiGo and Mahindra Electric exemplifies the complexities inherent in the enforcement of intellectual property rights across diverse commercial landscapes. The steadfastness of this case, whether through litigation or amicable settlement, will significantly remain a benchmark for businesses navigating the complexities of intellectual property law.
Interglobe Aviation Vs Mahindra Electric Automobile Ltd
CS(COMM)- 1073/2024 I.A. 46961/2024 I.A. 46962/2024 I.A. 46963/2024 I.A. 46964/2024
