Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited

IP ADJUTOR:EPISODE 21

Least Possibility of confusion in relation to high-value products

Case Title: Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited

Date of Judgment: 13.01.2025

Case Number: CS(COMM) 849/2024

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:116

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Introduction:

This case revolves around a trademark dispute in the burgeoning electric vehicle (EV) sector. The plaintiff, Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., alleged trademark infringement and passing off against Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited, stemming from the use of similar marks for electric vehicles. The dispute centers on the marks "EZIO" (plaintiff) and "eZEO" (defendant), with the plaintiff seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using the contested mark.

Background:

Plaintiff: 

Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of Gensol Engineering Limited, established in 2022, focuses on manufacturing EVs for diverse urban mobility needs.The plaintiff developed the mark "EZIO" in December 2022 and registered it in Class 12 on a "proposed to be used" basis. Registration was granted on 19.05.2024.The plaintiff is yet to launch its vehicle but has conducted testing and secured necessary certifications.

Defendant:

Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited, a subsidiary of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, is a dominant player in the EV market with a 50% market share. The defendant conceptualized its mark "eZEO" in April 2024, coined as an acronym for "Zero Emission Option," and announced the launch of its EV under this mark on 9.09.2024.

Conflict:

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s mark "eZEO" was deceptively similar to "EZIO," likely to cause confusion.The defendant argued its adoption was bona fide and proposed modifying its mark to "MAHINDRA ZEO."

Brief Facts of the Case:

The plaintiff applied for and secured trademark registration for "EZIO" in May 2024. The defendant announced its EV launch under "eZEO" in September 2024, claiming prior use and bona fide adoption.

The plaintiff filed the suit, alleging infringement and passing off, and sought an interim injunction. The defendant proposed modifications to its mark, dropping the prefix "e" and adding its house mark "MAHINDRA."

Issues Raised:

Does the defendant’s use of "eZEO" infringe upon the plaintiff’s registered trademark "EZIO"? Would the defendant’s modified mark "MAHINDRA ZEO" mitigate potential confusion or infringement claims? Does the plaintiff have sufficient goodwill or reputation to claim passing off? Is the plaintiff entitled to an interim injunction?

Reasoning of the Judge:

Visual and Phonetic Dissimilarity:

The court compared the marks "EZIO" and "MAHINDRA ZEO" and found them visually and phonetically distinct. Reliance was placed on precedents, including F Hoffmann-La Roche v. Geoffrey Manners, where differences in the uncommon portions of marks were deemed sufficient to avoid confusion. 

Nature of Goods and Consumer Behavior:

EVs are high-value products purchased after careful deliberation. The court noted that discerning consumers would consider the manufacturer’s name alongside the model name, reducing the likelihood of confusion. The defendant’s addition of "MAHINDRA" was deemed a significant distinguishing factor.

Goodwill and Reputation:

The plaintiff had not launched its vehicle, thus lacking market presence or goodwill. The defendant, as a well-established player, was unlikely to ride on the plaintiff’s goodwill. Bona Fide Adoption: The defendant conducted trademark searches and justified its adoption of "eZEO" as an acronym for "Zero Emission Option." The court found no evidence of intentional copying or bad faith. 

Likelihood of Confusion:

Given the distinct consumer segments and the addition of "MAHINDRA," the court ruled that confusion was unlikely. 

Decision: 

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The balance of convenience favored the defendant, as its vehicle was already launched, while the plaintiff’s product was yet to enter the market. Observations made in the judgment were limited to the interim stage and would not affect the final outcome of the suit.

Conclusion:

This judgment underscores the importance of distinctiveness in trademarks, especially in high-value industries like EVs. The court emphasized the role of consumer behavior, market presence, and bona fide adoption in determining trademark disputes. The decision serves as a reminder that interim relief in IP cases requires a strong prima facie case and demonstrable goodwill.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor
[Patent and Trademark Attorney]
High Court of Delhi
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.