Can a Trademark Cross Industry Boundaries? The IndiGo-Mahindra '6E' Dispute Tests the Limits of Brand Protection

The trademark dispute between InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo) and Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited demonstrates that modern trademark litigation is no longer confined to businesses operating within the same industry. While one company operates India's largest airline and the other manufactures electric vehicles, both now find themselves before the Delhi High Court over the use of a seemingly simple alphanumeric identifier "6E".

At first glance, an airline and an automobile manufacturer appear to have little commercial overlap. However, the dispute raises a broader legal question: Can a business prevent another company operating in an entirely different industry from using a mark that has become closely associated with its brand? The answer could significantly influence the future of trademark protection for well-known brands in India.

Mahindra Electric launched two new electric SUVs BE 6e and XEV 9e as part of its electric mobility portfolio in November 2024. Shortly after the launch, InterGlobe Aviation initiated proceedings before the Delhi High Court alleging that Mahindra's use of "BE 6E" infringed its long-standing rights in the registered trademark "6E".

IndiGo has used "6E" for nearly two decades as both its airline call sign and an integral component of its branding strategy. The mark appears across multiple customer-facing services, including 6E Prime, 6E Flex, 6E Add-ons and several collaborative offerings. The airline argued that "6E" had acquired substantial goodwill and public recognition, making any unauthorised commercial use capable of diluting its distinctive identity.

Mahindra, on the other hand, maintained that its trademark is "BE 6E" viewed as a whole, not the standalone expression "6E". The company further relied upon its trademark application under Class 12, covering motor vehicles, and argued that automobiles and airline services occupy entirely different commercial fields, making consumer confusion highly unlikely.

Unlike conventional trademark disputes involving competing businesses selling similar products, this litigation examines whether trademark rights can extend beyond traditional market boundaries.

Under the Trade Marks Act, infringement ordinarily depends upon the similarity of the marks, the nature of the goods or services and the likelihood of consumer confusion.

However, where a mark has acquired significant reputation, Indian trademark law also recognises broader protection against uses that may dilute its distinctiveness or create an impression of commercial association, even if the competing goods belong to different industries.

The controversy therefore extends beyond identical products and instead focuses upon the commercial strength of the "6E" identifier itself.

IndiGo contends that "6E" is not merely an operational airline code but an established trademark forming the core of its corporate identity.

According to the airline, the mark enjoys widespread recognition among consumers and has been consistently used across numerous services and promotional initiatives for almost eighteen years.

The airline argues that Mahindra's adoption of "BE 6E" may lead consumers to assume a commercial association, endorsement or licensing arrangement between the two companies, thereby diluting the goodwill attached to the "6E" brand.

IndiGo therefore seeks protection not only against direct consumer confusion but also against the gradual erosion of its distinctive identity.

Mahindra disputes the allegation of infringement on multiple grounds.

First, it argues that its trademark should be considered in its entirety as "BE 6E", where "BE" serves as the dominant and distinguishing element.

Secondly, the company submits that its trademark has been applied for and accepted under Class 12 relating to automobiles, whereas IndiGo operates within aviation and transport services.

Mahindra further contends that an average consumer is unlikely to believe that an airline has entered the electric vehicle market merely because of the shared presence of the expression "6E".

The company therefore maintains that no realistic likelihood of confusion exists.

This dispute represents an important evolution in trademark law.

Historically, infringement cases primarily involved businesses competing within the same industry.

Increasingly, however, companies invest heavily in building brands that transcend their original products. Consumers frequently encounter airlines launching financial products, automobile manufacturers entering mobility services and technology companies expanding into healthcare, entertainment and payments.

As businesses diversify, the boundaries separating industries become increasingly blurred.

Consequently, courts are now required to examine whether trademarks should protect only specific goods and services or the broader commercial identity associated with a brand.

The IndiGo-Mahindra litigation sits squarely within this evolving legal landscape.

The case also demonstrates why businesses seek recognition as well-known trademarks.

Such recognition allows protection to extend beyond identical goods where the use of a similar mark is capable of exploiting or diluting the reputation built by the original proprietor.

The dispute therefore is not merely about ownership of two characters "6E".

It concerns the commercial value that years of consistent branding can attach to even the simplest combination of letters and numbers.

The dispute offers several practical lessons for businesses:

• Trademark clearance should extend beyond identical industry classifications and examine whether similar marks enjoy significant public recognition.

• Businesses should evaluate whether alphanumeric identifiers, abbreviations and short brand elements have acquired independent distinctiveness.

• Registration under a separate trademark class does not automatically eliminate the possibility of litigation where a reputed mark is involved.

• Companies introducing new brands should consider potential dilution claims in addition to conventional infringement risks.

The IndiGo-Mahindra dispute reflects the changing nature of trademark law in an increasingly interconnected marketplace. The case is not simply about whether "BE 6E" resembles "6E"; rather, it asks whether the reputation attached to a well-known mark deserves protection beyond the industry in which it first emerged.

The Delhi High Court's eventual decision is likely to provide important guidance on the extent to which Indian trademark law protects brand identity across diverse commercial sectors. As companies continue expanding into new markets and product categories, the principles emerging from this litigation may become increasingly significant for businesses seeking to build and defend strong brands.