Decoding ‘6E’ – Examining the Legal Boundaries of Branding in Aviation Industry
- LAW SB
- Jul 15
- 3 min read
The legal dispute between India’s aviation leader, InterGlobe Aviation Private Limited (popularly known by its brand name, IndiGo), and automotive giant Mahindra Electric highlights a fascinating and complex facet of intellectual property law. At the center of this controversy lies the seemingly simple alphanumeric combination "6E." While IndiGo asserts that "6E" is a crucial part of its brand identity, Mahindra’s use of the same code in its foray into electric vehicles adds a layer of contention. The Delhi High Court now faces the challenge of determining the rightful usage of "6E" in commercial operations.[1]
It is important to note that the term, "6E" code was not created by IndiGo but was assigned to it by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) as part of its Airline Designator Code licensing system.[2] According to IATA’s guidelines, these codes are the exclusive property of IATA, and airlines are only licensed to use them under strict conditions. The codes are integral to the travel industry, serving as identifiers for airlines, destinations, and logistics processes. IATA explicitly prohibits the commercial use of its codes without prior authorization, emphasizing their functionality over brand identity.
This raises significant questions: Can IATA codes be treated as trademarks? Who holds the right to claim ownership, and who oversees their use or misuse? While IATA assigns these codes primarily for operational purposes, some airlines, including British Airways and American Airlines, have successfully registered their IATA codes (e.g., "BA" and "AA") as trademarks.[3] However, such registrations are typically defended on the basis that the codes are acronyms of their respective trade names—a defence that may not be available to IndiGo for "6E." If IATA codes are regarded as non-distinctive or generic under trademark law, IndiGo’s trademark registration for "6E" could face cancellation. This perspective gains weight when considering that IATA only permits the use of its codes through a non-exclusive, non-transferable license for internal business operations.[4] A breach of these terms can lead to immediate termination of the license. Therefore, IndiGo's attempt to claim exclusive rights to "6E" as a trademark raises questions about the compatibility of such a registration with IATA’s guidelines and the broader principles of trademark law.
In this context, Mahindra could argue that "6E" lacks distinctiveness as a trademark, leveraging its functional role as an IATA code to challenge IndiGo’s claims. Furthermore, allowing the registration of IATA codes as trademarks could undermine their non-proprietary nature, potentially creating monopolies that conflict with their intended purpose as universal identifiers.
Could IATA take legal action against Mahindra for using "6E"? While theoretically possible, such action would likely be infeasible unless Mahindra’s use disrupts the aviation industry or causes public confusion. If Mahindra remains outside the aviation sector, the chances of IATA pursuing a case appear slim.
Key Takeaways for Businesses
To avoid potential legal and branding issues, companies should steer clear of adopting non-proprietary names, marks, or codes (such as Woolmark, ISI, generic identifiers, or IATA codes) as part of their brand identity. While trademark registrations for such terms are sometimes granted, enforcing exclusive rights over them is often challenging, costly, and not always effective. Businesses should carefully assess the proprietary status of any identifiers they plan to incorporate into their branding strategies.
[1] CS(Comm) 1073/2024 pending before the Delhi High Court Commercial Division.
[3] UK Trademark Registration No. UK00903080033 in classes 16, 39, 43 for the mark ‘BA’; US Trademark Registration No. 1789458 in classes16, 35, 39 For the mark ‘AA’.
Comments