Driven by government incentives and technological advancements, India’s Electric Vehicle (“EV”) sector is witnessing a significant growth. However, growth in any sector also automatically results in competition in such sector intensifying. In the EV sector of India, one can view a similar trend that has reinforced the importance of intellectual property rights in general and trademark protection in particular.
In the recent conflict between Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Ltd., the former filed a suit against Mahindra for the use of the tradename ‘eZEO’ in relation to its recently launched line of electric vehicle. Gensol in the suit claimed that they were the registered owners of the trademark ‘eZio’and Mahindra’s use of ‘eZEO’ could potentially lead to confusion amongst consumers of the brands. The Delhi High Court (DHC) however, dismissed Gensol’s claim of trademark infringement and declined their request to injunct Mahindra from selling their electric vehicle under the trademark ‘eZEO’.
This article aims to analyze the case briefly, highlighting the key legal arguments and potential impact of the DHC’s judgment on trademark protection and branding strategies in the EV sector.
I. Gensol’s Claim
Gensol had, in December 2022, applied for the trademark ‘eZio’ on a “proposed to be used” basis with the Trademark Registry. Subsequently the trademark was granted to Gensol on May 19, 2024, with its validity subsisting until June 30, 2033. In September 2024 Gensol, on discovering about the launch of Mahindra’s new commercial electric four-wheeler bearing the mark ‘eZEO’ (“Mahindra’s EV’) and further discovering that Mahindra had filed its own trademark application for ‘eZEO’, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Mahindra’s use of the trademark ‘eZEO’, to prevent the launch of Mahindra’s EV on grounds of the trademark in question being disputed. Gensol claimed that the substantial similarity between the trademarks, especially given that both brands intended to use the same in relation to EV’s, could lead to confusion amongst the masses, impacting heavily on Gensol’s brand identity.
II. Mahindra’s Contention
Mahindra countered that it had no intention to infringe on any trademark and that information surrounding the launch of their electric vehicles with the trademark ‘eZEO’ had been in the public domain for a while. In furtherance of its arguments Mahindra made the following contentions.
A. Usage Of Acronym
Mahindra contended that the trademark ‘eZEO’ was chosen by Mahindra for their new launch with the intent of utilizing the acronym ‘ZEO’ for “Zero Emission Option,” a widely recognized term in the EV industry. They asserted that prior to their adoption of the trademark they had conducted a thorough trademark search on the same and had also conducted market research, neither of which revealed any conflict within the EV sector.
B. Inserion Of The ‘MAHINDRA’ Mark
Mahindra further contented that in the trademark of Mahindra’s EV, along with the mark, ‘eZEO’ It was also using the brand name, ‘Mahindra’ belonging to its parent company, to indicate the manufacture source of the vehicles and avoid any confusion amongst consumers. The addition of the mark ‘Mahindra’ and further drop of the letter ‘e’ made the trademark of Mahindra’s EV distinctive and differentiated it from Gensol’s mark.
C. Prior User
Mahindra launched the Mahindra EV featuring the disputed trademark on September 9, 2024, threby establishing that they had ‘used’ the ‘ZEO’ mark even before Gensol made its ‘EZIO’ mark publicly known. Mahindra further explained how even on date of launch of Mahindra’s EV, Gensol was yet to launch their EV thereby establishing Mahindra’s position as the “first in the market” with respect to the trademark. Additionally, Mahindra highlighted that Gensol only revealed its mark publicly on September 25, 2024, a day before filing the lawsuit against Mahindra.
D. Dissimilarity
With respect to the EV models being launched by each brand, Mahindra also argued that there were substantial differences between Gensol’s vehicle and Mahindra’s EV, in terms of design, functionality, and target audience. It was pointed out that Gensol’s mark was intended for a two-door, three-wheeler electric passenger vehicle, while Mahindra’s trademark applied to a four-wheeler electric commercial vehicle, serving different purposes and catering to distinct consumer groups. Based on these differences, Mahindra contended that there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers, traders, or the general public.
III. Court’s Observation
With respect to visual and phonetic of the trademarks – The DHC observed that Mahindra’s trademark “Mahindra ZEO” was substantially distinct enough from Gensol’s ‘eZio’ that any claim of confusion amongst the consumers of the brand could not be substantiated. Additionally, the DHC noted that Mahindra’s EV had already been launched before Gensol publicized its trademark ‘eZio’ thereby substantially reducing the probability of any trademark infringement. It was noted by the DHC that in addition to lack of similarity impacting brand identity, the fact that the EV’s of the two companies also appeared to be distinct from each other with respect to all their aspects including the customers they cater to, clearly indicated no mala fide intent on the part of Mahindra in utilizing the disputed trademark. Consequently, DHC concluded that Gensol had therefore failed to establish a prima facie case for an injunction and the balance of convenience favored Mahindra.
IV. Conclusion
DHC’s decision to reject Gensol’s request for an injunction in the present case marks an important development for both the EV sector and the intellectual property domain. The judgment highlights the crucial role that distinct and well-defined branding plays in protecting trademark rights and preventing consumer confusion. It also reinforces the importance of the brands taking the initiative and clarifying their association to their products by attaching their company name to their trademark products in order mitigate the chances of trademark disputes or fall prey to infringement claims.
In the present case the decision of the DHC underlined Mahindra’s proactive attempts including conducting thorough trademark searches and ensuring prompt public disclosure prior to launch of Mahindra’s EV – as one of the main reasons for deciding against the grant of an injunction. The DHC recognized Mahindra’s intention to create strong, unique branding strategies and identified it as proof of lack of any intent to infringe Gensol’s trademark. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of consumer behavior, market presence, and genuine trademark adoption in resolving intellectual property disputes.
This decision is expected to act as a strong precedent for trademark infringement cases in general with emphasis on brands entering in the EV sector in India.
Authors: Dayita Panicker & Sakshi Naik