Jai Raj Bhati
The Delhi High Court on 13th January 2025 declined to issue an interim injunction against Mahindra Last Mile Mobility, rejecting Gensol Electric Vehicles plea to restrain Mahindra from selling its newly launched electric vehicle (EV), “eZEO”. The order was passed by Justice Amit Bansal dismissing Gensol’s claims of trademark infringement. Gensol argued that Mahindra’s branding of its EV as “eZEO” could mislead consumers and cause confusion due to its similarity to Gensol’s registered trademark, “eZio”. However, the court found no immediate ground to halt Mahindra’s sales.
A key factor influencing the court’s decision was the stage of development of Gensol’s vehicle. While Mahindra had already launched its electric commercial vehicle in the market, Gensol’s EV was still in the developmental phase. Observing this distinction, Justice Bansal stated, “The balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant, as it has already launched its product, whereas the plaintiff is yet to launch its product in the market.” This reasoning underscored the principle that an interim injunction should not be granted if it would cause significant harm to a party that is already engaged in commercial activity, while the opposing party has yet to enter the market.
Gensol Electric Vehicles, a relatively new entrant in the EV sector, was founded in 2022 and has been working on its first electric vehicle primarily designed for urban transportation. The company completed the design phase of its EV, “EZIO,” in September 2022. Subsequently, it applied for trademark registration in June 2023, which was formally granted in May 2024. On the other hand, Mahindra contended that it had conducted a comprehensive trademark and market analysis before finalizing the name “eZEO” to ensure there were no conflicts within the electric vehicle industry.
Mahindra officially unveiled its EV under the “eZEO” and “ZEO” trademarks on World Electric Vehicle Day in September 2024. The company maintained that it was the first to commercially use the “eZEO” mark and refuted Gensol’s allegations of trademark infringement. Mahindra further pointed out that Gensol only began using its “EZIO” mark on September 9, 2024, while Mahindra publicly announced “eZEO” on September 25, 2024, merely a day before Gensol filed the lawsuit.
The court’s ruling, therefore, hinged on the principle that the mere registration of a trademark does not automatically entitle a party to injunctive relief especially when the alleged infringer has already commenced commercial operations. Since Mahindra had actively introduced its EV to the market, while Gensol was still in the process of launching its vehicle, the court found that Gensol had failed to establish an urgent case for interim relief.
By refusing the injunction, the court signaled that prior commercial use and actual market presence play a crucial role in trademark disputes, particularly in fast-evolving industries like electric vehicles. Justice Bansal’s observations emphasized that an interim injunction should not be granted lightly, especially when one party has already invested in and launched a product, while the other has not yet entered the market. Consequently, the decision allowed Mahindra to continue selling its “eZEO” EV, while Gensol was left to pursue its claims in subsequent legal proceedings.
Case Name :- Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt Ltd v. Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Ltd.
Case Number :- CS(COMM)/849/2024
Bench :- Justice Amit Bansal