ARTICLE
6 January 2025

A Collision Of Marks: Decoding Trademark Disputes In The Indigo-Mahindra Saga

LO
Legacy Law Offices

Contributor

Legacy Law Offices LLP is a multi-disciplinary law firm with a diversified portfolio of professional legal services. The firm has offices in New Delhi, Chandigarh, Solan and Kurukshetra with an associate office in Mumbai as well as a representative office in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Lawyers of the firm provide legal services across India and have worked on various developmental projects across countries in SAR, CAREC, MENA, and Africa. Legacy Law Offices LLP is also empanelled with the PPP authority of Bangladesh. The law firm is acknowledged as a "Leading Law Firm" by various leading global legal directories, including Legal500 and IFLR1000
In the realm of commerce and industry, a trademark serves as much more than a mere identifier of goods or services; it is a symbol of the reputation, trust, and goodwill accrued by its proprietor.
India Intellectual Property

In the realm of commerce and industry, a trademark serves as much more than a mere identifier of goods or services; it is a symbol of the reputation, trust, and goodwill accrued by its proprietor. The significance of trademarks in maintaining a distinct identity within the marketplace has led to the establishment of stringent legal frameworks to safeguard these intellectual property rights. The dispute between InterGlobe Aviation Limited (operating under the brand name "Indigo") and Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited (a subsidiary of Mahindra & Mahindra) over the use of the alphanumeric identifier "6E" epitomizes the complexities involved in trademark protection.

Factual Matrix of the Case

Indigo, the largest airline in India by fleet size, holds a commanding market share of 63%. The airline initiated legal proceedings against Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited on the grounds of trademark infringement. The contested mark in this dispute is "6E," a code extensively used by Indigo for various branding and operational purposes. Indigo contends that Mahindra's proposed usage of "BE 6E" for its new electric vehicle series constitutes a violation of its exclusive rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Legal Constructs of Trademark Infringement

The determination of trademark infringement hinges upon several critical factors, as elucidated below:

  1. Unauthorized Use (Section 29 (1)): Any utilization of a registered trademark without the consent of its proprietor constitutes infringement. The underlying rationale is to prevent the unauthorized party from misleading consumers about the origin of goods or services.
  2. Deceptive Similarity (Section 29 (2) (a)): The alleged infringing mark must exhibit visual, phonetic, or conceptual resemblance to the registered mark, resulting in the likelihood of confusion among consumers. This standard is interpreted from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
  3. Likelihood of Confusion (Section 29 (2) (b)): Confusion may be direct, wherein consumers mistake one brand for another, or associative, wherein consumers erroneously perceive a connection or endorsement between the two entities.
  4. Use in Similar or Related Classes (Section 29 (2) (c)): While infringement traditionally pertains to identical or closely related goods or services, certain cases extend protection to unrelated categories if the disputed usage dilutes the distinctive character of a renowned mark.
  5. Intent and Bad Faith (Section 11 (10)): While malafide intent is not a prerequisite for establishing infringement, evidence of deliberate imitation strengthens the claimant's case. Bad faith usage, particularly to capitalize on the goodwill of a well-known mark, is a critical consideration.

Statutory Remedies under the Trade Marks Act, 1999

The Act prescribes a spectrum of remedies to address trademark infringement, including:

  • Injunctions (Section 135 (1)): Courts are empowered to issue prohibitory orders to restrain the infringing party from continued usage of the disputed mark.
  • Monetary Compensation (Section 135 (2)): The aggrieved party may claim damages or an account of profits derived from the infringement.
  • Criminal Sanctions (Section 103): In egregious cases, criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment may be imposed to deter willful violations.

Indigo's Assertion of Rights over "6E"

The "6E" mark is integral to Indigo's branding strategy, featuring prominently across various service offerings, such as "6E Prime," "6E Flex," and "6E Add-ons." Indigo secured trademark registration for "6E" in 2015 across multiple classes, encompassing electronic advertising (Class 9), transport services (Class 39), and printed promotional materials (Class 16). This expansive protection underscores the significance of "6E" in preserving the airline's market identity.

Mahindra's Defense and Counterarguments

Mahindra contends that its use of "BE 6E" is distinguishable from Indigo's "6E." The automaker emphasizes that its branding prioritizes "BE" as the primary identifier, with "6E" serving as a secondary element. Moreover, Mahindra's registration under Class 12, covering automobiles, was duly approved by the Registrar of Trademarks, further substantiating its claim of lawful usage. Mahindra argues that the divergent nature of the industries aviation versus electric vehicles mitigates the risk of consumer confusion.

Judicial Proceedings and Interim Relief

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi1, upon hearing the matter on December 9, 2024 directed Mahindra to refrain from using the "6E" mark pending resolution of the dispute. In compliance with the court's directives, Mahindra renamed its electric vehicle to "BE 6" and issued a public announcement to that effect. Consequently, the application for interim relief was disposed of, and the matter was scheduled for final adjudication in April 2025.

Implications and the Way Forward

The outcome of this litigation carries significant implications for the jurisprudence of trademark law in India. It underscores the necessity for businesses to adopt comprehensive intellectual property strategies that account for potential conflicts in emerging markets. The resolution of this dispute will likely establish a precedent concerning the extent of protection afforded to trademarks transcending traditional industry boundaries.

This case exemplifies the dynamic interplay between innovation and intellectual property rights, reflecting the need for a balanced approach that fosters fair competition while safeguarding proprietary interests.

Footnotes

1 Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) vs. Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 1073/2024, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More