Advertisement
The automaker, which introduced two electric brands — BE 6e and XEV 9e — earlier this month, said its trademark ‘BE 6e’ differs from IndiGo’s ‘6E’, eliminating any risk of confusion.
IndiGo, which uses 6E as the airline designator code, however refuted the claim by the Mumbai-based automaker.
“The 6E mark is an integral part of IndiGo’s identity for the past 18 years and is a registered trademark that holds strong global recognition. The “6E” mark, whether standalone or in its variants and formative forms, is extensively used by IndiGo for its offerings and for goods and services provided in collaboration with trusted partners,” IndiGo said in a statement.
Related Articles
Advertisement
IndiGo is committed to taking all necessary and appropriate steps to safeguard its intellectual property and brand identity, it said.
M&M in a statement said it is in discussions with InterGlobe Aviation to find an amicable solution regarding the issue.
“We have taken on board the concerns that InterGlobe Aviation Ltd have to infringement of their goodwill, which was not our intention. We are engaged in discussions with them to find an amicable solution,” the auto major said in a statement.
According to reports, InterGlobe Aviation has sued the automaker for trademark violation over the ‘6e’ trademark.
Mahindra asserted that it has applied for trade mark registration under class 12 (vehicles) for “BE 6e”, part of its electric origin SUV portfolio.
“We hence don’t see a conflict as Mahindra’s mark is ‘BE 6e’ not the standalone ‘6E’. It differs fundamentally from Indigo’s ‘6E’, which represents an airline, eliminating any risk of confusion,” it said.
The distinct styling further emphasises their uniqueness, it added.
On November 26, M&M unveiled two ground up models — BE 6e and XEV 9e — with deliveries expected to commence in February-March next year.
The company said that the BE 6e comes with a range of 682 km while the XEV 9e features a range of 656 kms.
As per reports, IndiGo is challenging Mahindra’s trademark and seeking relief from the court’s intellectual property division.