ACIPR Logo

Alliance Center for
Intellectual Property Rights


THE WAR AMONGST BRANDS: THE 6E IDENTITY CRISIS

May 1, 2025

*Mr. Yash Somraj Roy

TRADEMARKS AND INDIA: A ROCKY RELATIONSHIP

A trademark is of the utmost essence in today's modern world, with thousands of disputes arising each day. Its main motive is to discern the goods and services of one person or entity from those of another.  The rise of trademark disputes only grows year after year and is expected to grow above and beyond with advancements in artificial intelligence and technology. The World Intellectual Property Organisation has recorded a  57 percent growth, from 3.3 lakh cases to 5.2 lakh cases of trademark disputes being filed from the years 2018-2023. These astonishing numbers state the need for regulations and laws that revolve around Trademark disputes and focus on solving them efficiently as well as urgently.

The recent "Indigo 6E" case is yet another instance of trademark altercations in India. This case between IndiGo Airlines and Mahindra Ltd. involves a dispute over the logo “6E”, which IndiGo Airlines considers to be its core identity. The dispute emerged under the legal lens when Mahindra utilised the mark on its newly manufactured SUV model. Subsequently, IndiGo claimed that the utilisation of the mark was an infringement of the airline’s brand identity. Therefore, after repeated tries at reconciliation and on failing to achieve common ground with the automobile company, it approached the court hoping for a legal remedy.

However, the lack of uniformity in trademarks in judgments and orders passed by courts may create legal hurdles for both parties. This dispute, between IndiGo and Mahindra, involves a rather fundamental and substantial question of trademark law: Does the uncertainty revolving around the “6E” case signal a need for uniformity in trademark interpretations? The author, by invoking this question, seeks to delve into the intricacies of the recent “6E” case with respect to trademark disputes and further seeks to explore the possibilities of suggesting changes that may be brought within the existing framework. The author also explores effective precautionary means and efficient solutions, which can in turn help the judicial ordinances to ensure uniformity in trademark interpretations and could also act as a diminishing force for Trademark disputes in India.

THE 6E CASE AND THE LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN TRADEMARK JUDGEMENTS

The 6E case is a dispute that arose in the “Delhi High Court” when IndiGo Airlines filed a suit of trademark infringement against Mahindra's newly launched flagship SUV model, the "BE 6E". IndiGo argued that the “6E” logo was a trademark of the airline and the services it provided, and therefore, Mahindra is deceiving the public by associating with the mark and the company's image. Mahindra defended itself by stating that the two companies were affiliated with different groups of industrial ecosystems and hence, in no way could the utilisation of the mark 6E cause any harm to IndiGo's image.

Trademark judgments in India have no definite boundaries and often have scope for scepticism. In the case of 'Nandhini Deluxe vs Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation', the court held that similar trademarks for products in different industries do not constitute an infringement of trademark. But contradicting this in the case of ‘L’Air Liquide Société Anonyme pour l’Etude et l’Exploitation des procédés Georges Claude and Anr. vs M/s Liquid AIR & Ors’, the court had a differing opinion and held that even though the products of both parties were connected to different industries, the use of a similar trademark nevertheless constituted a trademark infringement.

The court’s reasoning in the “L’Air Liquide” case to hold trademark infringement was due to a viable functional overlap between both companies and their involvement in commodities such as air and gas. However, it could be very strongly argued that in the “Nandhini Deluxe” case too, both parties faced a significant functional overlap with each other as both of them, entailed in the food production sector and hence came under the same umbrella. Therefore, the court, in this case too, should have warranted a finding of trademark infringement. Contradicting judgments of this kind are not rare in the Indian legal ecosystem, and multiple cases such as ‘Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and ‘ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products S.A’ indicate this.

The rigidity and uncertainty of trademark laws in India often have no criteria for distinguishing between what is considered infringement of a trademark and what is not, and although cases such as the ‘Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta’have attempted to define what constitutes trademark infringement. It is important to comprehend that the ruling majorly relies on phonetic similarity while ignoring the scope of cross-industry infringement conflicts. Another major inadequacy of this ruling is its primary reliance on consumer perception, which is not only an intangible and unquantifiable factor but also a highly ambiguous factor.

A LACKADAISICAL APPROACH: LEGAL INSIGHTS FROM THE 6E CASE

The Mahindra Group’s utilisation of such a renowned logo has unwarrantedly attracted the eyeballs of the legal fraternity. The Delhi High Court, as of now, has yet to pass a ruling, and it is quite possible that it could be in favour of Mahindra, considering the different industries the parties operate in, as seen in cases such as ‘Sony Corporation v. K. Selvamurthy’. Furthermore, the registration of the mark “6E” by Mahindra in class 12, which pertains to vehicles under trademark law, is another primary aspect that could create a favourable ruling for the corporate entity. Registration of trademarks under different classes sets boundaries to the scope of infringement and hence is an essential factor in deciding on cases of trademark disputes. IndiGo’s registration of the mark “6E link” under classes 9, 35, 39 and 16 and its lack of registration under class 12 paves the way for the automobile giant to argue against IndiGo’s claims of infringement, utilising the contention of different trademark classifications.

However, if we plunge deep into the intricacies, there is no way that the risk-to-reward ratios are proportionate with each other. Considering the fact that the Mahindra Group’s decision to brand their new SUV models using the logo “BE 6E” is a highly hazardous move, which could incur losses in millions of rupees for them, should the court’s decision not favour the automobile company. Disputes between automobile and airline manufacturing companies are rare in Indian legal ordinances as of now, and hence, as a result, determining the outcome of the 6E dispute is quite tough. The commonality of aspects such as transport and manufacturing, inclusive within their respective industries, may be considered as a crucial factor by the high court bench presiding over this dispute.

As of now, Mahindra has consented to an undertaking and has renamed their car as the “BE 6” instead; this is until the court passes a judgment regarding the pending case, or both parties agree to a complete settlement. Even though there is an industrial distinction between the two corporate entities, the judgment regarding the case is still quite unpredictable due to the ambiguity accompanying it. The potential confusion that could arise between consumers due to similar trademarks could be an essential factor in deciding the case's future. Although the ruling of the case currently won't have a binding effect on trademark cases in India due to it limited to the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction, it surely could engrave its name as a fairly vital and persuasive judgement for other Indian trademark rulings.

PROTECTING BRAND IDENTITY IN INDIA: BRIDGING THE GAPS

Indian trademark law has its own set of provisions to decide on cases of infringement. It could certainly benefit from foreign legislations, which would aid in overcoming Trademark inconsistency. In comparison with the United States Patent Trademark Office (USPTO) and its strict application of the DuPont Test, India lacks a structured doctrine to rely on. Although there is an application of the “likelihood of confusion” test in Indian trademark disputes. The test mainly relies on broad and perceptual principles, adding to the lack of uniformity. The regular reliance on consumer perception along with subjective rulings of Indian courts is another shortcoming that needs to be addressed in order to strengthen uniformity in trademark judgements. Hence, the adoption of a legal framework that sets definite guidelines would enable courts to move away from subjective and obscure rulings.

Indian courts can also integrate the “Lapp Test”, a multi-factor test incorporated by the United States, which consists of factors such as “similarity of marketing channels used” and “price and care required in purchasing the goods”. These additional components, along with pre-existing Indian trademark provisions, would play an aiding factor in addressing ambiguity in Indian Trademark judgements and disputes such as the “6E” case.

WAY FORWARD: COHERENCE IN TRADEMARK INTERPRETATIONS

With the given inconsistent rulings in issues revolving around trademark cases, this reflects an urgent need to standardise the process of determining disputes surrounding trademark infringement. Mahindra's move to use "6E" shows the repercussions of using trademarks without proper scrutiny. Which further escalates the matter to unnecessary legal battles and affects the brand's image and business.

The different classes in which the trademarks were filed, along with the operational overlap in the “6E” dispute, would play a key role in determining the outcome of this case. As forementioned, cases such as “Nandhini Deluxe” make it challenging to predict a precise judgment. Hence, this dispute, like several other trademark disputes, is certain to be surrounded by ambiguity and a lack of clarity.

The “6E” case is a predicament to the indistinctness of trademark interpretations and how the uncertainty in trademark interpretation must be tackled with urgency. As India evolves, disputes revolving around Intellectual Property Rights are bound to rise; therefore, it is an immediate call for India's legislative as well as judicial bodies to synchronise the trademark dispute system in an efficient way. Effectively synchronising the trademark dispute system would not only act as a positive pushback for Trademark disputes but would also ensure consistency in trademark interpretations.

REFERENCES

  1. WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2021/article_0011.html (last visited February 17, 2025).
  2. Sukalp Sharma, 6E vs 6e: IndiGo Takes Mahindra Electric to Court Alleging Trademark Infringement, The Indian Express, (Dec. 04, 2024, 5:55 PM), https://indianexpress.com/article/business/aviation/indigo-mahindra-electric-court-trademark-infringement-6e-9704719/.
  3. M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 3516.
  4. Khurana & Khurana, A Win Over the Battle of Trademark Infringement by Registered Mark Dealing Under a Different Class, MONDAQ (Feb. 17, 2025, 10:53 PM), https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/746782/a-win-over-the-battle-of-trademark-infringement-by-registered-mark-dealing-under-a-different-class.
  5. Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 3540.
  6. ITC Limited vs Philip Morris Products SA and Ors., 2010 (42) PTC 572 (Del.).
  7. Sony Corporation v. K. Selvamurthy, Com. O.S. No. 8464/2018.
  8. USPTO, https://www.uspto.gov/ (last visited February 17, 2025).
  9. MANDOUR & ASSOCIATES, https://www.mandourlaw.com/dupont-factors/ (last visited February 17, 2025).
  10. LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lapp_test (last visited February 17, 2025).

Author:
* Mr. Yash Somraj Roy
2nd Year, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Student, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of the Alliance Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (ACIPR) and the Centre does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.