InterGlobe Aviation, the company that operates IndiGo airline, has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Mahindra Electric. The dispute arises from Mahindra’s use of the term ‘6E’ in their new electric SUV, the BE 6e. IndiGo claims this could cause confusion with their widely recognized airline code, ‘6E.’
Details of Legal Dispute
IndiGo’s lawsuit, filed in the Delhi High Court, challenges Mahindra Electric’s use of ‘6E’ as part of its upcoming electric SUV, which is set to launch in February 2025. The court has scheduled the hearing for December 9. IndiGo’s legal team argues that the automaker’s use of the term infringes upon the airline’s established trademark and goodwill associated with the code ‘6E.’
Mahindra’s Response
In response, Mahindra Electric stated that its trademark application is for ‘BE 6e’ under Class 12, specifically for vehicles. The automaker believes there is no conflict as their term ‘BE 6e’ differs significantly from IndiGo’s standalone ‘6E,’ which is associated with the airline industry.
“Mahindra’s mark is ‘BE 6e,’ not just ‘6E,’ and its design and purpose are entirely different,” said the company in a statement. Mahindra further clarified that they acknowledge IndiGo’s concerns and are actively engaged in discussions to resolve the matter amicably.
Launch of BE 6e and XEV 9e
Mahindra recently expanded its electric vehicle portfolio by unveiling two new models: the BE 6e and the XEV 9e. The BE 6e, priced at Rs 18.9 lakh (ex-showroom), offers an impressive range of 682 km. The XEV 9e, priced at Rs 21.9 lakh (ex-showroom), features a range of 656 km. Both SUVs are part of Mahindra’s ambitious plans to lead the electric vehicle market in India.
The automaker has committed over Rs 12,000 crore to its electric vehicle business as it pushes forward with innovative and eco-friendly vehicle solutions. The BE 6e and XEV 9e are the latest additions to its electric SUV lineup, introduced on November 26.
Efforts to Resolve Dispute
Mahindra has expressed its willingness to address IndiGo’s concerns, emphasizing that its intention was never to harm IndiGo’s reputation or goodwill. Discussions between the two companies are ongoing, and Mahindra remains optimistic about finding a mutually agreeable solution.
This case highlights the increasing importance of trademarks in a competitive market and the need for clear distinctions across industries.
