India’s largest airline, IndiGo, has initiated legal proceedings against Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited over alleged trademark infringement concerning the use of ‘6E’ in Mahindra’s upcoming electric car, the BE 6E. The airline, known for its widespread branding around the “6E” mark, filed a suit before the Delhi High Court seeking relief against the automobile giant.
The case was listed for hearing before Justice Amit Bansal on Tuesday, but the judge recused himself, citing undisclosed reasons. The matter is now set for a hearing on December 9. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing IndiGo, informed the court that Mahindra had approached the airline for discussions to resolve the issue amicably.
The 6E Trademark Battle
IndiGo, which operates under the callsign “6E,” has built a comprehensive brand identity around the mark. Its services include 6E Prime, 6E Flex, and other add-ons, aimed at enhancing passenger convenience. The airline holds trademark registrations for the term ‘6E Link’ under various classes since 2015, covering services like advertising, airline transport, and promotional materials.
On November 25, the Registrar of Trademarks accepted Mahindra Electric’s request to register the term ‘BE 6E’ under Class 12, which pertains to motor vehicles and their components. IndiGo has challenged this registration, claiming it conflicts with their established trademark rights.
The airline’s registration in Class 39 specifically allows it to use the mark for airline services, while other classes include advertising and promotional purposes. Mahindra’s registration in Class 12, if granted, would permit the use of ‘6E’ for a range of electric and combustion engine-powered vehicles, buses, and tractors, among others.
Courtroom Developments
During the preliminary hearing, Advocate Sethi emphasized that IndiGo’s “6E” mark is a well-known identifier for the airline, forming a vital part of its brand identity. He argued that the adoption of the term by Mahindra could lead to confusion among consumers and dilute the airline’s trademark rights.
The court noted the significance of resolving trademark disputes in highly competitive markets and the potential implications for both industries involved. Justice Bansal’s recusal added an unexpected delay to the proceedings, with stakeholders awaiting the next hearing.
What’s Next?
With Mahindra indicating its willingness to engage in discussions, there is hope for an out-of-court settlement. However, legal experts suggest that the final decision could set a precedent for how similar cross-industry trademark conflicts are addressed in India.
The upcoming hearing on December 9 is expected to bring more clarity on the matter as both sides prepare to present their arguments before the court.
