India’s leading airline, IndiGo, has filed a lawsuit against Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited, alleging unauthorized use of its ‘6E’ trademark in the naming of Mahindra’s new electric vehicle, the BE 6e. The case, lodged in the Delhi High Court, underscores the significance of trademark rights in corporate branding.

IndiGo’s Trademark Claim

IndiGo, operated by InterGlobe Aviation Limited, utilizes ‘6E’ as its official airline code and a central element of its branding strategy. The airline has integrated ‘6E’ into various service offerings, including:

• 6E Prime: Benefits such as seat selection, priority check-in, and complimentary snacks.
• 6E Flex: Options for unlimited rescheduling and cancellation flexibility.
• 6E Add-ons: Customizable services like extra baggage, pre-booked meals, and lounge access.

The airline asserts that the ‘6E’ designation is a distinctive identifier associated with its services since its registration in 2015.

Mahindra’s Use of ‘6e’ in New EV

On November 26, 2024, Mahindra Electric unveiled its latest electric vehicle, the BE 6e, as part of its new lineup of battery electric vehicles. The BE 6e is designed as a compact SUV with a sporty coupe profile, targeting the burgeoning electric vehicle market in India. The vehicle is slated for market release in February 2025, with an expected starting price of ₹18.90 lakh (ex-showroom).

Legal Proceedings and Responses

IndiGo’s legal action contends that Mahindra’s use of ‘6del constitutes trademark infringement, potentially leading to consumer confusion and dilution of IndiGo’s brand identity. The Delhi High Court has scheduled a hearing for December 9, 2024. In response, Mahindra has expressed its intent to amicably resolve the issue, stating, “We are engaged in discussions with them to find an amicable solution.”

Implications for Corporate Branding

This legal dispute highlights the critical importance of trademark protection in maintaining brand integrity. For companies, especially those with significant market presence, safeguarding distinctive identifiers is essential to prevent brand dilution and ensure clear market differentiation.

Potential Outcomes

The resolution of this case could set a precedent for future trademark disputes in India, particularly concerning the use of alphanumeric designations across different industries. If the court rules in favor of IndiGo, Mahindra may be required to rebrand its vehicle, potentially incurring additional marketing and production costs. Conversely, a ruling in favor of Mahindra could prompt companies to re-evaluate their trademark strategies to protect their brand assets effectively.

Conclusion

The ongoing legal battle between IndiGo and Mahindra Electric underscores the complexities of trademark law in the context of evolving market dynamics. As both companies seek a resolution, the case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of diligent trademark management and the potential challenges that arise when brand identities intersect.