CASE NO: CS(COMM)-1073/2024
CNR NO: DLHC010882282024
DATE OF FILLING – 02 Dec 2024
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
InterGlobe Aviation Limited, the parent company of IndiGo Airlines, has initiated legal proceedings against Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited (MEAL), a subsidiary of Mahindra & Mahindra, concerning the use of the term “6E” in connection with the latter’s newly launched electric SUV. The issue at hand arises from the fact that IndiGo Airlines has long utilized the “6E” mark as its callsign, registered across multiple classes of goods and services, including advertising (Class 9), promotional services (Class 35), transportation (Class 39), and printed materials (Class 16). In contrast, Mahindra Electric has sought registration for the term “6E” in Class 12, which pertains to motor vehicles and related equipment, specifically in connection with their BE 6E electric SUV.
The central contention arises from the similarity between the marks “6E” and “BE 6E,” which, according to IndiGo, may cause confusion among consumers due to the phonetic resemblance between “6E” and “sexy.” IndiGo further asserts that the use of “6E” in Mahindra’s electric SUV brand could result in consumer confusion, given that the mark is already closely associated with the airline. Conversely, Mahindra maintains that its mark is distinct and operates in a completely different market space, that of electric vehicles, and there is no possibility of confusion with IndiGo’s airline services.
INDIGO’S POSITION
IndiGo Airlines has firmly stated that the “6E” mark has been an integral component of its brand identity for the past 18 years. The airline underscores that the “6E” trademark is registered and enjoys strong global recognition across multiple industries and partnerships. IndiGo further asserts that any unauthorized use of the “6E” mark constitutes a direct infringement upon its intellectual property rights, reputation, and goodwill, emphasizing that the company will take all necessary measures to protect its brand identity from dilution or misuse. IndiGo’s position is that the mark “6E” has achieved a level of distinctiveness and recognition in relation to its airline services that cannot be overlooked or infringed upon without significant repercussions.
MAHINDRA’S REPLY
In response to the lawsuit, Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M), through its subsidiary Mahindra Electric, has reiterated that the term “BE 6e” pertains solely to their electric SUV lineup and is distinct from the mark “6E” used by IndiGo Airlines. M&M asserts that “BE 6e” has been applied for trademark registration under Class 12, which is specific to motor vehicles, and thus there is no likelihood of confusion with IndiGo’s mark, which is associated with aviation services. Additionally, Mahindra maintains that the design of their mark “BE 6e” is unique and distinguishable from IndiGo’s “6E,” further minimizing any possibility of confusion among consumers.
Furthermore, M&M clarified that the term “BE” stands for “Born Electric,” a reference to their electric vehicle technology, and has no connection to IndiGo or the aviation industry. Mahindra has therefore argued that their use of “BE 6e” is entirely non-infringing and distinct, with the marks operating in separate sectors.
CURRENT SITUATION
In light of the ongoing litigation, Mahindra Electric has, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, voluntarily decided to rename its electric SUV from “BE 6e” to “BE 6” during the pendency of the suit. This change is made in the interest of resolving the matter amicably and without prejudicing either party’s position.
The matter is currently before the Delhi High Court, with the Joint Registrar (Judicial) scheduled to review the case on 29th January 2025 for marking of exhibits. The matter is set for a full hearing before the Court on 23rd April 2025, where the legal arguments of both parties will be further elaborated, and a final decision on the dispute is expected.
CONCLUSION
The dispute between IndiGo and Mahindra Electric raises important questions regarding trademark infringement, consumer confusion, and the protection of intellectual property rights across different sectors. While IndiGo emphasizes the distinctiveness of its “6E” mark within the aviation industry, Mahindra maintains that their use of “BE 6e” in the context of electric vehicles presents no risk of confusion. The outcome of this litigation will have significant implications for the protection of brand identities in the context of modern, cross-industry commercial practices.
Authored By – Rituraj Khare (BBA LLB) 5th year
Link to Ipindia’ website: https://www.ipindia.gov.in
Wish to read similar articles? Click on the link to read more: https://jpassociates.co.in/detailed-analysis-of-lacoste-v-crocodile-international-case-copyright-and-trademark-dispute-in-india/
