India's largest airline informed the court that Mahindra had reached out to it on Monday evening to discuss the issue.
IndiGo has taken Mahindra Electric Automobile to the Delhi high court for infringement of its trademark '6e' in Mahindra's new electric car, the Mahindra BE 6e, which is expected to hit Indian roads in February 2025.
India's largest airline informed the court that Mahindra had reached out to it on Monday evening to discuss the issue.
The case came up before Justice Amit Bansal on Tuesday, but the judge recused himself from hearing the matter. It is now expected to be heard on December 9.
The dispute arose when the registrar of trademarks on November 25 accepted Mahindra Electric's request to register the 'BE 6e' mark in Class 12.
Under trademark laws, there are a total of 45 classes of trademarks, with Classes 1-34 pertaining to products and Classes 35-45 pertaining to services.
IndiGo operates under the callsign '6e', which is also a key identifier of its branding.
In aviation, a callsign is a group of letters and numbers used to identify an aircraft or aviator in air-ground communications (in this case, 6e).
The '6e' brand also offers a wide range of services to its passengers, such as seat selection, priority check-in, complimentary snacks, and the ability to flexibly reschedule and cancel.
In addition, the 6e add-ons also offer options for extra baggage, pre-booked meals, and lounge access.
IndiGo obtained registration for the word mark '6e Link' under Classes 9, 35, 39, and 16 in 2015, which gives it right to use '6e' for advertisement and services.
Now that Mahindra's request has been accepted to use 'BE 6e', it can be used for motor vehicles and related components.
"The '6e' mark is an integral part of IndiGo's identity, having been used for the past 18 years, and is a registered trademark that holds strong global recognition," an IndiGo spokesperson said.
"The '6e' mark, whether standalone or in its variants and formative forms, is extensively used by IndiGo for its offerings and for goods and services provided in collaboration with trusted partners," the IndiGo spokesperson added.
"Any unauthorised use of the '6e' mark, whether standalone or in any form, constitutes an infringement of IndiGo's rights, reputation, and goodwill. IndiGo is committed to taking necessary steps to safeguard its intellectual property and brand identity," the IndiGo spokesperson stated.
Mahindra applied for trademark registration under Class 12 (vehicles) for 'BE 6e' as part of its electric-origin SUV portfolio.
"We don't see a conflict, as Mahindra's mark is 'BE 6e', not the standalone '6e'. It differs fundamentally from IndiGo's '6e', which represents an airline, eliminating any risk of confusion," a spokesperson for Mahindra & Mahindra stated.
"The distinct styling further emphasises their uniqueness. We have taken on board the concerns that InterGlobe Aviation has about the infringement of their goodwill, and are engaged in discussions for an amicable solution," fhe M&M spokesperson added.
This is not the first time that IndiGo has ended up in a trademark dispute with another business operating in the automotive sector.
Around the time IndiGo launched its initial public offering in 2015, Tata Motors had claimed infringement of its trademark by IndiGo.
Tata Motors launched its flagship sedan 'Indigo' in 2002 and issued notices to InterGlobe Aviation (parent company of IndiGo) in 2005. However, IndiGo went ahead with the trademark at the time.
Further, in 2016, Go Holdings (proprietors of now-bankrupt Go Air) had sued IndiGo before the Bombay high court over intellectual property issues related to their chosen prefix 'Go', and had sought directions to rename the airline from 'Indigo' to 'Indi'.
The suit, however, was for intellectual property disputes between two airlines and the use of a prefix, as opposed to entire trademark infringements.
The largest question this trademark battle poses is whether trademark monopoly can be held to be class/industry agnostic solely based on its proximity to brand identity.
According to Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the remedy against infringement of a trademark is available only in respect of the goods or services for which the trademark has been registered.
In Nandhini Deluxe vs Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation, the Supreme Court ruled that similar trademarks for different categories of products will not constitute an infringement.
However, the Delhi high court's ruling in L'Air Liquide Société Anonyme pour l'Etude et l'Exploitation des procédés Georges Claude and Anr. vs M/s Liquid AIR & Ors reflects the nuance in this law.
'Air Liquide' was a French service provider in the healthcare sector and had filed a suit claiming infringement over another business operating in the sale of gas products using the business domain 'liquidair.in'.
The court observed that the defendant's use of the trademark constituted infringement due to an overlap in the nature of services (albeit in a different class) and possible confusion among consumers between the two service providers.
"However, there is a significant overlap of trademark, as the BE 6e does seem to prominently feature the brand identity logo of the airline.
"We look forward to the arguments to be presented by the parties in court and how this will evolve trademark infringement across classes of trademark registration," said Shryeshth Sharma, partner at SKV Law Offices.
Sudarshan Singh Shekhawat, founder of Shekhawat Law, says that Mahindra's choice to adopt '6e' is surprising and highly risky.
"This case is not a good example of intellectual property strategy for either sector. Just because IndiGo isn't itself making and selling vehicles/aircraft (under Class 12), it does not mean '6e' or its derivative would be up for grabs for a manufacturer of vehicles," Shekhawat said.
"I would be very surprised if this goes to trial, and from the latest reports, it does appear that settlement discussions have begun," he said.
Feature Presentation: Ashish Narsale/Rediff.com
