Alphanumeric Marks: Where Well Known Brands Clash

INTRODUCTION

As companies branch into new sectors and overlapping industries, trademark disputes between big brands and well known marks are becoming more prevalent. A recent example of this is the trademark case, Interglobe Aviation Vs Mahindra Electric Automobile Ltd, involving Indigo Airlines (“Indigo”) and Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited (“Mahindra”) over their respective use of the ‘6E’ mark. This case illustrates the complexities of protecting well-known marks, preventing consumer confusion, and navigating strategic branding in a cross-industry context.

BACKGROUND

In November 2024, Mahindra launched its new electric vehicle, the BE 6e. Soon after, Indigo filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Mahindra, claiming Mahindra’s use of ‘6E’ infringed on its earlier well-known ‘6E’ trademark, long associated with aviation and related services. While Mahindra eventually renamed its upcoming electric vehicle from ‘BE 6e’ to ‘BE 6’, thereby complying with Indigo's core demand—removal of ‘6E’, Indigo’s twin arguments encompassing its well-known trademark status and distinctiveness raises important legal questions. Firstly, does ‘6E’ qualify as a well-known mark with strong brand recognition beyond its core class of the aviation sector? Secondly, can Mahindra’s use of the ‘6E’ mark in the electric vehicle market lead to consumer confusion and dilution of the distinctiveness of the Indigo 6E brand? 

WELL-KNOWN MARKS & DISTINCTIVENESS

Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("the Act"), read along with Sections 11(6) to 11(10) of the Act provides the framework for determining well-known trademarks, including, but not limited to factors such as the mark’s reputation, consumer recognition, and historical use. However, trademark protection is inherently class-specific, meaning marks can typically only claim exclusivity within certain market classifications. 

Section 12.2.5 of the Trademark Manual further emphasises the importance of distinctiveness as a critical factor for protection:

Marks consisting of single letters or two letters will be generally regarded as “devoid of distinctive character” for goods because of tendency in trade to use letters as models or catalogue references, further these may be used as abbreviation of names. Two letter marks may be acceptable in respect of services having regard to the trade practice.

While two-letter marks may be accepted under particular service-based contexts, their interpretation becomes far more nuanced when markets intersect. In cases like Indigo 6E versus Mahindra BE 6E, the central issue is whether the alphanumeric combination '6E' is sufficiently distinctive as a well-known mark and whether Mahindra's use falls within a different market that does not cause confusion. This is because while well-known trademarks are protected against unauthorized use even outside their classification of goods or services applied for, distinctiveness still remains a key consideration, especially when markets overlap.

Further, with regards to Indigo’s claims of brand dilution and consumer confusion, Section 29(4) of the Act allows for infringement claims if a well-known mark is used in a way that may dilute its distinctiveness or confuse consumers about the source of goods or services. However, as enshrined in the case of Caterpillar Inc. v. Mehtab Ahmed 2002, the test for confusion is whether the mark may lead to dilution as well as confusion ‘as to source, affiliation or connection’ among the potential purchasers. In the present case, the distinct industries (aviation vs. electric vehicles) and the additional 'BE' in Mahindra’s mark suggest that consumer confusion is unlikely. Additionally, it is a well-settled principle of law relating to trademarks that conflicting marks must be compared as a whole. This is to say that ‘Indigo 6E’ must be compared with ‘Mahindra BE 6E’ instead of breaking them up into parts and comparing 6E in isolation. A simple comparison of the same throws a much stronger focus on the much established brand names i.e., Indigo v. Mahindra, thereby dissipating any confusion. Moreover, Section 17 of the Act clarifies that registration confers on the proprietor exclusive right to the use of the trademark taken as a whole, not to isolated elements like ‘6E’. Since Indigo’s registration for ‘6E’ does not extend to Class 12 (vehicles), its protection is limited to the mark as applied, and Mahindra’s use of an overall dissimilar mark likely mitigates the risk of potential consumer confusion and/or brand dilution.

CROSS-INDUSTRY BRANDING AND STRATEGIC CHALLENGES

The present case is emblematic of a trend in cross-industry branding, where companies borrow recognizable names, symbols, or concepts with market-wide visibility to craft new brand identities. Of course, when industries overlap—such as aviation and electric vehicles—these risks become magnified.

At first glance, Mahindra’s initial use of “6E” as part of its vehicle name could possibly be reflective of a strategic marketing move, leveraging the visibility of a well-known mark. However, on a deeper analysis and given that Mahindra itself is recognized as a well-known mark with significant market power and brand equity across various industries, it is unlikely they would intentionally adopt another established mark. Mahindra’s ultimate choice of rebranding could possibly be suggestive of Mahindra prioritizing practical outcomes over prolonged litigation. This highlights a common trend in branding, where companies may create sub-brands that are phonetically or visually similar to others. For example, the similarity between McDonald's ("Mc") and Apple's MacBook, or Spotify and Spotty, or Facebook and Facetime is not new, and such overlap often sparks legal disputes. The line between inspiration and infringement in branding can be thin, and this case is unlikely to be the last instance of such conflicts. 

Another intriguing aspect of the present case lies in the well-known status designation of the parties involved. While the suing party here, Indigo has gained significant recognition in the aviation industry, it has not yet achieved the well-known mark status under Indian trademark law. This would mean that the protection it enjoys is more limited, typically confined to its class of goods or services. Therefore, Indigo cannot claim exclusive rights over the 6E mark across industries, particularly not in the Class 12, where Mahindra is applying for registration of its BE 6E mark.

In contrast, Mahindra is officially listed as a well-known mark in the well-known marks list published on March 18, 2024, which grants it greater protection and legal standing across multiple classes of goods and services. Hence, being a well-established brand with a broad market footprint, it is less likely for Mahindra to intentionally adopt an existing mark for commercial benefit. In any way, the legal landscape here doesn’t present a classic David v. Goliath narrative; instead, it is a battle between two heavyweights, both of whom command significant influence and customer loyalty  in their respective sectors.

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, the short lived battle of Indigo 6E vs. Mahindra BE 6E raises timely questions about well-known trademark protections, consumer confusion, and brand strategy. Mahindra’s decision to rename their upcoming electric vehicle from ‘BE 6E’ to ‘BE 6’ showcases strategic adaptability in response to legal threats but also leaves open questions about the limits of trademark protections, especially with concerns regarding monopolizing alpha-numeric 2-character marks, despite overall differences in marks and markets. It raises questions about what constitutes infringement when two well-established brands inadvertently overlap and whether the consumer confusion is a real risk or merely a legal tactic to assert dominance. Ultimately, while both parties have a legitimate claim, it’s unlikely that Mahindra’s actions were an attempt to hijack Indigo’s brand power. Therefore, as industries blur and companies enter new markets, it will be crucial to balance the fine line between actual consumer confusion and hypothetical market overlap, indicating a pressing need to navigate distinctiveness in well-known marks, cross-industry branding, and consumer perception in the era of interconnected markets. 

References:

1.  DHC – CS(COMM) 1073 / 2024

2.  (25) PTC 438 (Del.)