Use of Modified Trademark 'MAHINDRA ZEO' Does Not Infringe Plaintiff’s 'EZIO': Delhi High Court

The Inclusion of 'MAHINDRA' as a House Mark Effectively Distinguishes the Trademark 'ZEO' from 'EZIO - Delhi High Court ruled on a trademark infringement suit filed by Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. against Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of the modified trademark "MAHINDRA ZEO" infringed its registered trademark "EZIO" under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The court, presided by Justice Amit Bansal, denied the plaintiff's application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, 1908, holding that the defendant’s revised mark “MAHINDRA ZEO” was neither phonetically nor visually similar to "EZIO", and the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement or passing off. The court also emphasized the lack of market presence and goodwill of the plaintiff as a significant factor in the decision.

The plaintiff, Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., registered the trademark “EZIO” on May 19, 2024, for its proposed electric passenger vehicles. The mark was filed on a “proposed-to-be-used” basis, and the plaintiff had not yet launched any vehicles under this mark.
The defendant, Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited, a well-known electric vehicle manufacturer with an established market presence, launched its commercial electric vehicle under the trademark “eZEO” on September 9, 2024.
The plaintiff argued that “eZEO” was deceptively similar to “EZIO”, and filed for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark. Subsequently, the defendant modified its trademark to “MAHINDRA ZEO”, incorporating its house mark “MAHINDRA”, and discontinued the use of “eZEO”.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that “MAHINDRA ZEO” was deceptively similar to “EZIO”, observing:

"The defendant has modified its original mark ‘eZEO’ in a manner so as to drop the letter ‘e’ and added its house mark ‘MAHINDRA’, pursuant to which it reads as ‘MAHINDRA ZEO.’ The two marks cannot be said to be identical. Consequently, there cannot be an automatic presumption of confusion under Section 29(3) read with Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act." [Para 17]

The court noted that the modifications rendered the marks visually and phonetically dissimilar, thus negating any likelihood of confusion.

Relying on precedents like F Hoffmann-La Roche v. Geoffrey Manners and CFA Institute v. Brickwork Finance Academy, the court emphasized that the distinctive differences in the structure and pronunciation of the marks “EZIO” and “MAHINDRA ZEO” made them unlikely to confuse consumers.

"The change effected by the defendant in its mark from ‘eZEO’ to ‘MAHINDRA ZEO’ makes the two marks visually and phonetically dissimilar so as to not cause any confusion among the public." [Para 20]

The court highlighted that the plaintiff had yet to launch any vehicle under the "EZIO" mark and thus lacked goodwill or reputation in the market.

"It cannot be said the plaintiff has any goodwill in the market in relation to its vehicles. On the other hand, the defendant is a well-known player in the field of commercial electric vehicles with a substantial market presence." [Para 22-23]

The defendant’s use of the “MAHINDRA” house mark further established a clear distinction, as "MAHINDRA" is a recognized brand in the automobile sector.

The court reasoned that electric vehicles, being high-value products, are purchased after careful deliberation. Consumers are likely to consider the manufacturer’s reputation and conduct detailed research, making confusion improbable.

"Motor vehicles are high-end products. A customer intending to purchase a motor vehicle would not make the decision on an impulse... In the normal course, the customer would visit the showroom of the car manufacturer or its authorized dealer to inspect or test drive the vehicle before purchase." [Para 31]

The court observed that the use of the "MAHINDRA" house mark before "ZEO" served as a significant distinguishing factor in the market, aligning with the established practice of identifying automobiles by both the model and manufacturer.

"The inclusion of ‘MAHINDRA’ to the mark ‘ZEO’ makes the mark distinctive and effectively sets it apart from the mark of the plaintiff, both structurally and phonetically." [Para 34]

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of trademark infringement or passing off. The balance of convenience also favored the defendant, as its product was already launched, whereas the plaintiff was still in the development stage.

The plaintiff’s application for interim injunction was dismissed.
The court clarified that the observations were limited to the interim stage and would not affect the final outcome of the suit.
The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores the importance of market presence, goodwill, and consumer behavior in assessing trademark disputes. It reaffirmed that visual, phonetic, and contextual differences in trademarks, along with the addition of a house mark, can negate claims of infringement and passing off.

This ruling provides crucial guidance for businesses in adopting trademarks, especially in competitive industries like electric vehicles, where branding plays a pivotal role.

Date of Decision: January 13, 2025