Mahindra’s Position

In a statement issued on Saturday, Mahindra clarified that its trademark BE 6e differs significantly from IndiGo’s 6E. The company argued that:

• The full name, BE 6e, is distinct and unlikely to cause confusion.
• It belongs to a completely different industry and product category, namely automotive rather than aviation.
• The designs and applications are fundamentally unrelated.

Despite these assertions, Mahindra has temporarily renamed the SUV BE 6 to avoid escalation while the matter is sub judice.

IndiGo’s Claim

On December 3, 2024, InterGlobe Aviation filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against Mahindra Electric Automobile, alleging that any use of 6E—either as part of a name or independently—violates IndiGo’s trademark rights. IndiGo emphasized that:

• 6E has been integral to its identity for the past 18 years and enjoys global recognition.
• Any unauthorized usage could harm the airline’s reputation and goodwill.

IndiGo vowed to take all necessary measures to protect its intellectual property and brand.

Broader Trademark Tensions

Interestingly, IndiGo itself has faced trademark disputes in the past. Tata Motors objected to InterGlobe’s use of the name “IndiGo,” citing its sedan model, Indigo, launched in 2002—four years before IndiGo Airlines’ first flight.

Mahindra’s Perspective

Mahindra expressed disappointment over the dispute, calling it an unnecessary distraction between two prominent Indian companies. “We believe Indian brands should support each other’s success. To avoid further conflict, we have decided to name our product BE 6,” the company said.

Background and Next Steps

Mahindra unveiled its first “electric origin” SUVs, BE 6e and XEV 9e, on November 26. The trademark registrar had approved Mahindra’s application to register BE 6e just a day prior, on November 25. Should Mahindra successfully register the name in the future, it would secure the exclusive right to use BE 6e.

The Delhi High Court will hear the case on Monday, December 9, potentially setting a precedent in how cross-industry trademark conflicts are handled.

Claim Approved After a 12-Year Legal Struggle

Jitendra Giri, a resident of Madua Tand, Jhumeri Telaiya, shared his story of persistence. He had filed an insurance claim for his accident-damaged vehicle, but the insurance company refused to settle the amount. In response, Giri approached the District Consumer Forum in 2011 and registered Case No. 39/11.

After years of hearings and legal procedures, the Consumer Forum issued a verdict on October 4, 2013, directing National Insurance Company Limited to pay ₹2.45 lakh to Giri as the claim amount, along with 9% interest and ₹12,000 for mental harassment.

Arrest Warrants Issued Against Insurance Managers

Despite the Forum’s ruling, the insurance company failed to comply. This led the Forum to issue arrest warrants on June 7, 2023, against the Senior Divisional Manager of Hazaribagh and the Branch Manager of Jhumeri Telaiya. Following this, the insurance company finally disbursed a cheque for ₹3.48 lakh through the Consumer Forum, which Giri accepted under protest.

Jitendra Giri’s relentless fight for justice not only secured his rightful claim but also highlighted the importance of standing firm against systemic challenges.