IndiGo, India’s largest airline, has filed a legal case against Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited, accusing the automaker of trademark infringement over the use of "6E" in its newly introduced electric vehicle, the BE 6E. IndiGo claims that Mahindra’s branding closely mirrors its established use of "6E," which is central to the airline’s identity and a variety of its passenger services. The case has been brought before the Delhi High Court, with the next hearing scheduled for December 9, 2024. Justice Amit Bansal, who initially presided over the matter, recused himself, and the case is expected to proceed with a new judge.
IndiGo has long operated under the call sign "6E," incorporating it into its branding and numerous customer-focused services. These include offerings such as 6E Prime, which allows for seat selection, priority check-in, and snacks; 6E Flex, which provides options for flexible rescheduling and cancellations; and other 6E-branded services, such as extra baggage options and access to premium lounges. The airline has secured trademark registration for "6E Link" under several classes since 2015, including advertising displays, illuminated signage, online and physical advertising related to transportation services, printed promotional materials, and airline services for passenger and goods transportation. IndiGo argues that the use of "6E" by Mahindra in its electric vehicle branding infringes upon these rights and could confuse consumers or dilute the strong association of "6E" with the airline.
Mahindra Electric, meanwhile, recently applied for and received acceptance for trademark registration of "BE 6E" under Class 12, which pertains to motor vehicles and their components, excluding two-wheelers. The BE 6E is part of Mahindra’s electric SUV portfolio and has generated significant interest for its innovative design and advanced features. While the vehicle has been unveiled to much anticipation, bookings for the model have not yet begun. Mahindra has stated that its branding is "BE 6E," emphasizing that it is not the standalone "6E." The automaker contends that its use of the mark is distinct and pertains solely to its electric vehicle portfolio, which is unrelated to IndiGo’s airline operations. Mahindra argues that the differences in styling, industry, and application eliminate any likelihood of confusion among consumers.
This case highlights the increasing complexity of trademark disputes in an era where industries are diversifying and expanding into new markets. IndiGo’s argument rests on the assertion that the adoption of "6E" by Mahindra, even in a different sector, infringes upon the airline’s established brand identity, potentially leading to a dilution of its market recognition. Conversely, Mahindra’s defense focuses on the distinctiveness of its branding within the automotive sector and its separation from airline services.
The legal battle also underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property as companies navigate competitive and interconnected markets. The court’s decision will not only address the immediate dispute between IndiGo and Mahindra but could also set a significant precedent for how trademarks are evaluated and enforced across industries with seemingly unrelated products and services. Both sides are presenting their case in a manner that seeks to assert their rights while mitigating potential harm to their brands, with IndiGo emphasizing the longevity and market penetration of its "6E" branding and Mahindra focusing on the specificity of its application within the electric vehicle domain. The outcome will likely influence how trademarks are interpreted and protected in an increasingly complex commercial environment.
