The case revolves around a trademark dispute between Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. (the plaintiff) and Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited (the defendant) regarding the use of the trademarks “EZIO” and “ZEO” for electric vehicles. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of “ZEO” and “eZEO” for its electric four-wheeler commercial vehicle infringed upon its trademark “EZIO,” which was registered under Class 12 for automobiles. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from using these marks and requested damages. On the other hand, the defendant argued that its adoption of “ZEO” was bona fide, as it was an acronym for “Zero Emission Option” and was unrelated to the plaintiff’s trademark. The central issues before the court were whether the defendant’s mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s, whether the plaintiff had established sufficient goodwill in the market, and whether an interim injunction was warranted.
Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in 2022 as a subsidiary of Gensol Engineering Limited. The plaintiff entered the electric vehicle market with the goal of producing sustainable mobility solutions and had designed and developed an electric vehicle under the trademark “EZIO.” The company claimed that it had been using the mark since December 2022 and had obtained a registered trademark for “EZIO” on May 19, 2024, valid until 2033. The plaintiff asserted that it had invested significant resources into the development and branding of “EZIO,” including a life-sized clay model, advertising efforts, and regulatory approvals from the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). On January 7, 2024, the plaintiff’s prototype vehicle underwent road testing in Pune, Maharashtra.
The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered an article on September 9, 2024, announcing that the defendant was launching a new electric four-wheeler under the mark “eZEO.” A subsequent investigation revealed that the defendant had also applied for trademark registrations for “ZEO” and “eZEO” under Class 12 on August 29, 2024, and September 10, 2024, respectively. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on September 26, 2024, seeking an injunction against the defendant’s use of the marks, arguing that their similarity would create confusion in the market.
Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited, a subsidiary of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, countered the plaintiff’s claims by arguing that its use of “ZEO” was both independent and legitimate. The defendant had been in the electric vehicle market for over 20 years and commanded nearly 50% of the commercial EV segment. The defendant asserted that it had conceived the mark “ZEO” as an acronym for “Zero Emission Option” in April 2024 and had conducted a trademark search before its adoption, which did not reveal any conflicting registrations. Additionally, the defendant’s vehicles were always sold under the parent company’s house mark, “Mahindra,” which was prominently displayed on all its models, reducing any likelihood of confusion.
During the court proceedings, the defendant offered to modify its mark by dropping the “e” and branding its vehicles under “Mahindra ZEO” instead of “eZEO.” However, the plaintiff rejected this compromise and continued to seek a complete prohibition on the use of “ZEO” in any form. The defendant argued that the presence of the “Mahindra” house mark was a distinguishing factor, and its commercial EVs differed significantly from the plaintiff’s proposed passenger vehicles.
The court examined several key factors before arriving at its decision. First, it analysed whether the two trademarks were deceptively similar. While acknowledging that “eZEO” bore some resemblance to “EZIO,” the court noted that the defendant had voluntarily altered its branding to “Mahindra ZEO,” which reduced phonetic and visual similarity. The court relied on precedents such as F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to determine that similarity alone was insufficient unless there was a high likelihood of consumer confusion. Given that “EZIO” and “ZEO” had different pronunciations and structures, the court found no immediate presumption of infringement.
Second, the court evaluated whether the plaintiff had established goodwill in the market. The plaintiff argued that it had already invested in the “EZIO” brand and had obtained regulatory approvals, but the court found that the plaintiff had not yet launched its product commercially. Since no vehicles had been sold under the “EZIO” brand, the plaintiff had not developed a significant market reputation or consumer recognition. On the other hand, the defendant had an extensive market presence, with a sales turnover of INR 3,057 crores in the financial year 2023-24. The defendant’s vehicles were already available for sale, and the company had an established dealership network under the “Mahindra” brand.
Third, the court addressed the issue of consumer perception. Since automobiles are high-value purchases, consumers typically conduct detailed research before making a decision. The court noted that customers buying electric vehicles would be discerning and would not rely solely on the model name but would also consider the manufacturer’s reputation. Given that the defendant prominently used the “Mahindra” name, the court ruled that any potential confusion would be minimal. It referenced decisions in MESO Pvt. Ltd. vs Liberty Shoes Ltd. and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs Scotch Whisky Association, which established that educated and brand-conscious consumers are unlikely to be misled by minor similarities in product names.
The plaintiff also cited other cases arguing that even sophisticated consumers could be misled by similar brand names. However, the court distinguished these cases by pointing out that the products in question had already gained widespread market recognition in both instances. Since “EZIO” had not been launched commercially, the court was unconvinced that any real harm had been caused to the plaintiff.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s request for an interim injunction. It held that while the plaintiff had a valid trademark for “EZIO,” its lack of commercial use weakened its claim of passing off. Furthermore, the defendant’s willingness to modify its branding to “Mahindra ZEO” demonstrated good faith and reduced any possibility of market confusion. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant, as granting an injunction would disrupt its ongoing business operations while the plaintiff’s product had not yet entered the market.
This judgment highlights the importance of actual market presence in trademark disputes. While prior registration of a mark provides legal protection, courts consider factors such as reputation, goodwill, and consumer perception before granting injunctions. The ruling reaffirms that trademarks must be evaluated in their totality, including accompanying house marks, to determine the likelihood of confusion. By denying the injunction, the court has clarified that mere conceptual similarity is insufficient to establish infringement, particularly when the contested mark is not yet commercially active.