Delhi High Court accepts Mahindra’s undertaking to halt ‘6E’ use for new EV pending trial

The Delhi High Court on Monday recorded an undertaking from Mahindra Electric Automobile Ltd, agreeing not to use the “6E” trademark for its upcoming electric car model, the BE 6, during the pendency of a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by InterGlobe Aviation Ltd., the operator of India’s largest airline IndiGo.

Mahindra committed to rebranding the model from BE 6E to BE 6 but signalled its intent to contest IndiGo’s claims in court. In turn, IndiGo informed the court it would not pursue an interim injunction against the automaker.

Read this | Delhi High Court to hear Tesla trademark dispute next in April 2025 as mediation continues

After accepting the undertaking, the court disposed of IndiGo’s plea for interim relief, issued summons to Mahindra, and scheduled the matter for April 2025.

IndiGo’s claims

The lawsuit, filed on 4 December, asserts that IndiGo’s “6E” trademark is not merely a call sign but a cornerstone of its branding. Representing passenger-focused services such as 6E Prime, 6E Flex, and premium add-ons like lounge access and extra baggage allowances, the airline argues that “6E” is integral to its identity and protected under trademark law. IndiGo has sought an injunction to prevent Mahindra from using the designation.

“Any unauthorized use of the ‘6E’ mark, whether standalone or in any form, constitutes an infringement of IndiGo’s rights, reputation, and goodwill,” the airline said in a statement. “We will take all necessary steps to protect our intellectual property.”

Read this | IndiGo: Navigating turbulence as market leader

IndiGo had registered the trademark ‘6E Link’ in 2015 under multiple classes, including Class 9 for advertising, Class 35 for promotional services, Class 39 for transport, and Class 16 for printed advertising materials.

Mahindra’s defence

Mahindra had secured approval from the trademark registrar on 25 November 2023, to register “BE 6E” under Class 12, which encompasses motor vehicles and related components.

In a 7 December press statement, Mahindra announced the rebranding while affirming its determination to challenge the lawsuit. The automaker emphasized that its “BE” mark, registered under Class 12 for motor vehicles, was part of its broader “Born Electric” platform.

“The mark ‘BE 6E’ differs fundamentally from IndiGo’s ‘6E,’ which represents an airline. The distinct styling and its classification under an entirely different industry sector highlight the lack of conflict. We believe IndiGo’s claims are baseless and intend to contest them in court,” Mahindra said.

Mahindra also questioned the monopolization of two-character alphanumeric marks, arguing that such practices could stifle innovation and create barriers across industries.

The “6E” in Mahindra’s original branding was intended as a playful nod to the phrase “Be Sexy.” The BE 6E was conceived as a futuristic electric sports SUV, part of a broader lineup of electric vehicles that includes the BE 5E and BE 7E. 

Read this | Mahindra launches maiden ground-up electric vehicles BE 6e and XEV 9e

Mahindra plans to launch five all-electric models by 2028, complementing its XEV brand, which has already debuted models like the XEV 9E. Earlier iterations of BE vehicles were showcased under names like BE.05 and XUV.e9.

Legal perspective

Legal experts told Mint that Mahindra’s reliance on a mark resembling IndiGo’s “6E” poses significant legal risks, suggesting the automaker may face challenges in defending its position in the trademark infringement lawsuit.

They noted that this isn’t IndiGo’s first encounter with trademark disputes in the automotive sector.

In 2015, as IndiGo prepared for its initial public offering (IPO), Tata Motors alleged trademark infringement, citing its 2002 launch of the “Indigo” sedan. Despite receiving notices from Tata in 2005, IndiGo continued using the name.

Similarly, in 2016, Go Holdings, the owner of GoAir, filed a suit against IndiGo over its use of the prefix “Go,” requesting the airline rebrand itself as “Indi” to avoid confusion. However, that case centred on prefix usage rather than full trademark infringement.