IndiGo Sues Mahindra Electric Over "6E" Trademark Dispute

IndiGo Airlines has filed a lawsuit against Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited (MEAL) for allegedly infringing on its trademark by using "6E" in the branding of Mahindra’s new electric car, the BE 6e. The lawsuit was submitted to the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, marking a significant intellectual property conflict between two major industry players.

Court Proceedings and Justice’s Recusal

Justice Amit Bansal briefly heard the case on Tuesday but recused himself from further proceedings. The next hearing is scheduled for December 9. According to a report from Bar and Bench, IndiGo's legal representatives informed the court that Mahindra had previously reached out to discuss the issue.

Trademark Controversy

IndiGo, operated by InterGlobe Aviation, emphasizes that "6E" is a core part of its brand identity and callsign, representing services like "6E Prime" and "6E Flex." The airline registered the "6E Link" trademark in 2015, covering airline services, advertising, and other related uses. Conversely, Mahindra's trademark application for "BE 6e" pertains to Class 12, covering motor vehicles.

MEAL defended its position by highlighting this classification difference, stating that "BE 6e" applies strictly to electric cars, whereas IndiGo's trademark is registered under airline services. The company clarified that its trademark does not cover two-wheelers and emphasized the distinctiveness between the two brands.

Mahindra’s Stance: No Intent to Conflict

Mahindra Electric maintained that it did not intend to infringe upon IndiGo's goodwill or create consumer confusion. In a statement filed with the market regulator, the company affirmed, "We have taken note of IndiGo's concerns regarding any potential infringement of their goodwill, which was not our intention. Discussions are ongoing with IndiGo to resolve the matter amicably."

The automaker also stressed that "BE 6e" refers exclusively to its electric vehicles, a sector far removed from the airline industry. It asserted that its product design and applications further differentiate its brand from IndiGo’s.

Ongoing Discussions and Resolution Hopes

Both companies have indicated a willingness to engage in dialogue to settle the dispute outside the courtroom. Given the implications for trademark law across distinct industries, industry observers will closely monitor the outcome.

Key Concepts Involved

The issue between IndiGo Airlines and Mahindra Electric revolves around a trademark dispute over the use of the term "6E."

• Trademark Infringement: IndiGo claims that Mahindra Electric's use of "BE 6e" in their electric car branding infringes on its trademark "6E." IndiGo has long used "6E" as a core part of its brand identity, including for services like "6E Prime" and "6E Flex," and holds trademarks in areas related to aviation and advertising. Trademark infringement occurs when one party uses a mark similar to another's, potentially causing confusion or implying a false association.
• Trademark Classes: Trademarks are registered under specific categories (or "classes") that denote different goods or services. IndiGo's "6E" is registered under classes related to airline services and advertising, while Mahindra's "BE 6e" is registered under Class 12, which covers motor vehicles. Mahindra argues that these classifications are different, reducing the likelihood of confusion.
• Brand Identity and Consumer Confusion: IndiGo asserts that "6E" is a distinctive element of its brand, easily recognizable by its customers. They fear that Mahindra's use of "BE 6e" could dilute their brand's uniqueness or mislead consumers into thinking there's a connection between the airline and the car manufacturer.
• Goodwill Protection: IndiGo's claim also focuses on protecting its brand's goodwill—the reputation and customer trust it has built around the "6E" mark. They argue that any association with another product or service could harm their brand image, especially without consent.

The dispute centres on whether using similar trademarks in entirely different industries (aviation vs. electric vehicles) constitutes infringement or creates enough potential for consumer confusion to warrant legal action.